Talk:Acts of the Apostles/Archive 2

Broken source link
Footnote #7 leads to a source that no longer exists (as of 8/7/2010 when I tried it). The link is to http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/papers/actsarcheology.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.110.114 (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary overlong?
It seems to me that the plot summary of this book is somewhat overlong and inaccurate. Would anyone care to condense it? 165.118.1.51 (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps specifics would be useful. Exactly what section to you mean and what inaccuracies do you see? JodyBtalk 11:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Manuscripts section paragraph up for deletion
The following text is in the Manuscripts sections:
 * It is believed that the material in the Western text which isn't in the Alexandrian text reflects later theological developments within Christianity. For examples, the Western text features a greater hostility to Judaism and a more positive attitude towards Gentile Christianity. Some also note that the Western text attempts to minimize the emphasis Acts places on the role of women in the early Christian church.

Considering it is uncited and was tagged with a "need reference" comment in December 2009, my suggestion is that the paragraph be deleted as "one person's opinion" and not even a really good one (as the "greater hostility to Judaism is highly questionable). Ckruschke (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Source of Acts
Hi, could you explain why you have removed very important and relevant sourced statements on the sources section? Here is what was removed: According to the Bible, the ultimate source of all scripture, including Acts, is God Himself. We are told in 2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God...." Therefore, Christians believe that Luke was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write God's very words.(Sourced from Grudem, Wayne, "Systematic Theology, |year=1994, publisher=IV Press, pages=62, 73-78, 1168, 1203-1207)  This does not violate any policy.  You are removing the Christian view of the source of Acts with a RS.  This is the Christian view as explicitly mentioned here and sourced.  Man, people really don't follow WP policy unless they agree with it.  Major bias!  WalkerThrough (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As I explained in the edit summary:
 * Literary criticism is a historical study, not a theological one. As such, a theological source is about as appropriate as Richard Dawkins (who could be described as an atheological source).  -- In other words, reliable sources must be relevant.  Is Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion" a reliable source?  Sure: if the topic is "Criticism of religion," but not say British politics (even if he discusses the latter).
 * That statement was only about the Bible as a whole work. Acts was originally written as an independant work.
 * Also, your addition was a Christian view, not the Christian view, your holiness. Observable historical earthly influences on a text, belief in the divinity of and salvation through Christ, and belief that a text is divinely dictated are three different topics.  A person's views on one topic does not absolutely determine their view on the others.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Acts of the First Christians
Acts of the First Christians not Acts of the Apostles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerryyabes (talk • contribs) 07:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Omissions
There is some material that I was expecting to find here, pertaining to authorship & date.

I was expecting to find the material about this subject separated into its own section, & so missed seeing it in the first paragraph. There are sections explicitly labeled "Date" & "Place", & I believe it would be easier for the general reader if this material had its own section. This paragraph also passes over the important point that both tradition & internal evidence indicates Acts was written by the same person as the Gospel of Luke. I believe the expert consensus unanimously supports the authorial connection; I'm unaware of any serious proposal that Acts was written by a different person than the author of Luke. Two other surprising omissions are (1) any mention of the "We" passages, sections written in the first person plural (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16, & one further passage in the Western text-type), which may have been written by the writer/compiler of Acts, & (2) that the author fails to mention that Paul wrote letters to some of the churches he founded, whether due to ignorance (which would suggest he may not have personally known Paul) or intent (he misjudged their importance future readers would give them).
 * Authorship

Two details I would expect to be mentioned here: (1) the date of the earliest manuscript would provide an irrefutable terminus ante quem, although the earliest manuscripts of Acts have been dated to the 3rd century, this fact needs to be mentioned--as well as the earliest explicit mention of this work, which I believe is the Muratorian fragment, usually dated to c. AD 170; & (2) its connection with the Gospel of Luke would point to a date close to that work, which Raymond Brown states would be AD 85, give or take 10 years (An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 226).
 * Date

Here the text glosses over the fact that the differences between the Western text-type & the other textual traditions vary the greatest for this work. To offer my own opinion about this, which can't be directly used for this article, I've wondered if Marcion's recension--he is known to have rewritten some of the books of the New Testament to varying degrees to support his own beliefs--has had a direct or indirect effect in creating this divergence. (That is, both changes he made to the text as well as changes to the original text others mistakenly thought he altered have entered into both the Western & non-Western text types.
 * Manuscripts

If I had the time to make these changes, & the confidence my edits wouldn't be reverted, I would make them. But I'm not certain that they would be accepted. -- llywrch (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * On "authorship," I would have expected a third alternative: that writing letters to churches (and people) was so commonplace to Paul, that the author of Acts never thought to include them. I don't know anyone who suggests that the letters that were preserved were the only letters that Paul (or anyone else, for that matter) ever wrote. Student7 (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Contents template - help needed
I've screwed up my attempt to make a Detailed Contents template for Acts. I used the one from Gospel of Matthew and couldn't figure out how it works. If anyone can fix it I'd be most grateful No doubt so would everyone. PiCo (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

My rewriting of the article
My thanks to all those who've so patiently watched as I rewrote the article. I apologise if I've axed your favourite pieces, or work that you've spent hours over, but I was only trying to produce what I saw as a good piece of work. Such beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course. If you don't like anything, feel free to edit it - that's what Wiki is all about. I'm retreating once more into my retirement, and won't be back, at least not to this article. My only request is that someone who knows about templates might do something about the "detailed contents" sidebar, which I royally screwed up and can't unscrew, but it's supposed to look like the ones in the four gospel articles. Anyway, thanks again, and remember, don't take Wikipedia too seriously, it's an entertainment, not a life. PiCo (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've started an experiental version of the template at User:John Carter/AA, and hope to get too it tomorrow if not today, but if you see this before then User:PiCo feel free to do what you deem reasonable. John Carter (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Diffs
To keep things simple, I find the paragraphs that start with "Luke describes his work, Luke-Acts" and similar wording to be problematic. Yes the article mentions that we do not the name of the author and that the name "Luke" is used by tradition but I don't see how this then makes sense to use "Luke" as the assumed author in the rest of article. It is a least potentially confusing if not downright misleading. SQGibbon (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "The author" might well be less problematic phrasing. John Carter (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Would now be the appropriate time for you to look at the diff of reverted edits to determine whether some of the problematic phrasing, as you see it, is addressed in my edits? --Sfarney (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)sfarney


 * Sorry, but those diffs are no more than weasel-wordings apparently designed to introduce the idea of uncertainty among scholars where the sources don't indicate any such thing. PiCo (talk) 04:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * PiCo, but what do you think of John Carter's idea of changing the wording to "the author" wherever Luke is specifically mentioned in the article? This seems like a simple change and not terribly controversial and more neutral. If we can all agree on that then we can address further items in turn. SQGibbon (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * SQGibbon: No objection in principle, but I fear it would make for clumsy prose. We could use that sometimes, but perhaps a hatnote saying that we're using the term "Luke" to mean the work called Luke-Acts, not its unknown author? Anyway, go ahead and experiment. PiCo (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be possible to include something in the article to the effect of "the author, hereinafter identified as Luke for the sake of simplicity," or something along those lines if the prose gets too clunky. John Carter (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, "weasel-wordings" is neither a fair nor complimentary characterization. The authorship of Acts is not undisputed.  Why should the Wiki represent that it is?  I have not been able to find direct statements by the disputers, but I do find many references to them.  For example: Scholars who question the traditional authorship sometimes contend that only the “we” portions represent the original eyewitness portions (and that these may have been written by Luke). -- Who Wrote Luke and Acts?  Even the Wiki article Authorship of Luke–Acts does not take the dogmatic no-room-for-doubt approach presented here -- the section on "Common authorship of Luke and Acts" is much more cautious.  Would you call that caution, "weasel-wordings"?--Sfarney (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The authorship of the various Biblical books is too important for many Christians to discuss with an "open hand." But as with all other subjects, the Wiki should take the broad view rather than the narrow.--Sfarney (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Many commentators argue that Luke did not write Acts based on certain elements" -- Introduction to the Book of Acts--Sfarney (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * See also A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age by McGiffert, Arthur Cushman, 1861-1933. The contents of this book I know only from critique by Sir W. M. Ramsay.  In the section THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE ACTS, he writes, "Dr. McGiffert's book on the History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age contained the most powerful statement known to him of the view that the Acts of the Apostles could not have been written by Luke, the friend and pupil of St. Paul." -- Pauline and Other Studies in Early Christian History, by Sir W. M. Ramsay, Hon. D.C.L., etc., Professor of Humanity in the University Of Aberdeen.--Sfarney (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC) sfarney


 * Sfarney: You say that there's disagreement among scholars regarding the unity of Luke-Acts, but none of the sources you use to support that are reliable sources withing the meaning of Wikipedia policy. Most of them are personal websites, and the other is a book a hundred years old. Sources need to be from people who are experts in the academic area of New Testament studies, and they need to be comparatively contemporary. Both our sources, Burkett in the lead and Boring further on, say, categorically, that the two are a single work. I'm quite happy to qualify this, but you need to find reliable and recent sources.


 * It's all about sources and balance. Use reliable sources to get scholarly views, preferable in the form of statements that say "the majority view is...", and make sure that various viewpoints are represented in proportion to their importance. So far as I can tell from my reading, the overwhelming majority view is that L-A do indeed come from one author, but if you can find clear and recent sources saying otherwise, ok.PiCo (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not the correct page for discussion of the authorship of Acts and whether it is the second volume of Luke-Acts. The page Luke-Acts fulfills that function nicely and should carry all the controversy on the subject.  This page has a different purpose, else two pages are not required.  It can be linked to Luke-Acts.  And remember, "importance" is not equivalent to "majority."  Yes, the Luke-Acts thesis is VERY important to the mainstream Christian Church because Book of Acts legitimizes St. Paul, and the Luke-Acts thesis ties Acts into the Gospels and the original Apostles.  If Acts is viewed as a separate work, first St. Paul and then the Church begin to lose their authenticity.  But propping up that kind of authenticity is not a mission for Wikipedia.  Wiki requires: "a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (Neutral Point of View)  It does not say "recent" or "important."  My specific objection to the article as written is expressed here: "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, 'John Doe is the best baseball player' expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact."  --Sfarney (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Was Acts Authored by Luke?
This material is copied from the talk page to provide full context to the discussion and points of view.

The article you restored represents a partisan opinion, not universal opinion. There were many Gospels in the early centuries. Four were canonized. The author of Acts states that he authored biography of Jesus, but which one? Do you have ANY historical evidence that this mention refers to the Gospel of Luke? If so, under Wikipedia rules, you should cite it. Otherwise, it is little more than a Christian tradition. As admitted even in the text you prefer, the author(s) of both books is/are unknown. Until they are identified, they cannot be presumed to be the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarney (talk • contribs) 03:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What you did has multiple violations of WP:WTW, and some of your edits also contradict from WP:NPOV. I'll have an administrator resolve this ASAP, so I won't have to waste anymore time arguing with you. Also, let me clarify this to you, your edits have nothing to do with sources, all you did was manipulate content in your POV favor. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But you do not name any of my violations. Wouldn't a discussion of specifics be a more rational way to approach this matter?  Let me be very specific, just for you.  There is no external evidence apart from Christian tradition that the author of Luke is the author of Acts.  None.  The first chapter of Acts states that the author also wrote a Gospel, but he/she doesn't say which one.
 * I call to your attention the name of Johannes Brahms gave to one his musical compositions: "Variations on a Theme by Haydn." Exhaustive research shows it is not based on, nor does it contain, a theme by Haydn.  The practice is so common, it has a name: pseudepigraphy.  It is so common in historical literature, it is not considered proof in any other field than Christianity,  In historical research, it is not even considered evidence.
 * The same article admits that no one knows the name of the author of either book. No one knows for certain when they were written, or where.  And of course, no one knows why, either.  The words you prefer say it was once thought to be an historical account, but is now thought to be primarily theological.  The original manuscripts have not survived, so handwriting cannot be compared and the original wording is confused by later copiers,
 * But fatally, those who assert a common authorship for Luke and Acts provide no objective support for their assertions. And that should not surprise us, because there IS none.
 * You and the affected sects of the Christian Church are welcome to believe as you wish, but please do not present these matters of faith as though they were matters of fact.--Sfarney (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)sfarney
 * @Sfarney Why don't you just read the policies, then look at your own edits. Everything is sourced, and the author of the gospel is unknown according to the article, which is also sourced in the article. If you have any more questions about the article, start a discussion in the article's talk page and not my talk page. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the authors of both books are unknown. That is MY point.  You are not correct to insist you know who wrote either of those Biblical books, and therefore you are not correct to insist they were written by the same person. Your Christian traditions are not a sufficiently reliable source of historical information.  I DON'T have any questions of you on the subject. Let the article reflect the fact that the whole issue is just a religious tradition, not a historical fact.--Sfarney (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)sfarney
 * @Sfarney First of all, the article is suggesting according to early church tradition that the author is Luke. Second, the article obviously clarifies that the author is unknown according to modern scholarship. Final, if you ever try to personally attack me again per WP:NPA, i'll have your reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The text you insist on having in the article reads, without qualification, "Acts is the second half of a two-part work by the same anonymous author, Luke-Acts, usually dated to around 80-90 CE." That is neither a "suggestion" nor a reference to a "church tradition."  The text you prefer continues with multiple statements in the same tone:  "Authorship of Luke–Acts;"  "The gospel of Luke and Acts make up a two-volume work which scholars call Luke-Acts."  "The author is not named in either volume.(Burkett|2002|p=196) According to Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, he ... [reinforcing the presumption that the two authors are one and the same]."  "Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts ..." and so forth and so on.  This unquestioning allegiance to a single, unsupported religious doctrine is inappropriate for Wikipedia.
 * Your preferred text also states: "Luke-Acts is an attempt to answer a theological problem..." How can anyone pretend to know who was attempting what when writing those manuscripts?  This is Wikipedia, not a Sunday school tract.
 * If you take that as a personal attack, so be it. The dialogs on this page reveal you have somewhat a thorny reaction to any disagreement, so bring on the rain.--Sfarney (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)sfarney
 * This discussion is over, I have already explained to you. If you have a problem with the article or anything related to, start a discussion in the article's talk. Also, here are are a list of important polices you should know: WP:OR, WP:WTW, WP:LISTEN, WP:HARASS, & WP:PERSONAL. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

--Sfarney (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)sfarney

I have restored this discussion to provide context. Everything I have to say on this subject at this time, I say in the text above. Rewording it would not improve it. Deleting the text wholus bolus does not comport with civility required by the important policies you cite and with which you should be familiar. Your activity is venturing upon harassment. You should cite your reasons here for preferring the language of partisan theologians rather than a neutral historical view.--Sfarney (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)sfarney

The original text (the text JudeccaXIII restored) lifts whole sentences from THE BOOK OF ACTS. This not permitted in Wikipedia.--Sfarney (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)sfarney

JudeccaXIII Since the whole article cannot be discussed at once, Let us begin with a single sentence. Our differences begin with the first sentence of the second introductory paragraph. The original text that you restored reads: "Acts is the second half of a two-part work by the same anonymous author, Luke-Acts, usually dated to around 80-90 CE." Do you know whether this is Christian doctrine or the consensus of secular historians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarney (talk • contribs) 23:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The Acts Seminar, among other scholars, conclude that the authors are not the same. I'm not an expert but this appears to be a minority opinion. SQGibbon (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ""Acts is the second half of a two-part work by the same anonymous author, Luke-Acts, usually dated to around 80-90 CE." Do you know whether this is Christian doctrine or the consensus of secular historians?" It's the consensus of secular historians - see the sources cited at the end of the sentence (in the article, that is).PiCo (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside their religious affiliations, which are not apparent, those two sources are not historians. James H. Charlesworth teaches at the Princeton Theological Seminary, i.e., he is a theologian.  Delbert Burkett is Chair, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, not history again.  These scholars are normally expected to be interest in, and address the philosophical, theological, or religious aspects aspects of various documents, not necessarily to apply the rigorous skepticism of historians.--Sfarney (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)sfarney


 * The subject area isn't history, it's literary study (the study of a literary text to determine authorship, date, etc); and you're wrong about them being theologians. PiCo (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * PiCo My information about the intellectual focus of these people comes from an examination of their professions, as described by their employing schools. As shown, they are employed as theologians.  Am I wrong to presume they also write and publish as theologians, rather than physicists, archaeologists, or historians?  The business of theology is to interpret the theological implications of events and documents, including historical events.  Theologians are not normally trained, equipped, or paid to determine which events are historical.  A theologist must presume the historian and archeologist's work has already been done. Therefore, these people are not primary sources on the historicity, dating, or relative authorship of Acts and Luke.--50.46.146.220 (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)sfarney
 * Sfarney, I'm afraid that yes, you are wrong. Burkett and Charlesworth are biblical scholars, a rather clumsy term for people who investigate the history and meaning of the biblical text. You can see from those two books that they approach the subject from a secular viewpoint (they don't assume that God is responsible for anything, not even for inspiring the biblical authors). They're quite detached, quite scientific, insofar as scholarship is a science (it certainly has accepted practices and standards. They're also, as individuals, highly regarded in their field. These are reliable sources within the definition used by Wikipedia. PiCo (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * PiCo, those scholars should definitely be cited, as you have done, and as I have suggested continuing. But what is the degree of certainty in their work?  Textual analysis is not an exact science.  Let us consider the success of those techniques with the Shakespearean play, Titus Andronicus, or indeed, with all of Shakespeare's plays.  Shakespeare died only 500 years ago.  His plays are in English, and many of his original manuscripts have survived.  The volume of text is much greater than Luke and Acts combined, and yet controversy over his authorship began more than 200 years ago and persists to this day.  In contrast, the Acts of the Apostles and Luke are at least 1900 years old, none of the original manuscripts have survived, and the surviving copies contain considerable variation in content and wording.  At best, we should say that those two scholars express the majority (but not unanimous) opinion that Luke and Acts have a common author.  But we cannot represent their opinions as an absolute unquestionable truth.  Disagreements between the two books, both of which are alleged to be historical, should be reason enough to question a common authorship.
 * It is not our place to question the degree of certainty of any work unless we have reliable sources which specifically do so. To do otherwise would be to violate WP:OR. All we can do in wikipedia, according to policies and guidelines, is repeat what has been said before in roughly the proportion or balance of the best academic sources out there. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * John Carter, PiCo Sorry you did not understand this earlier, but the opinion that Acts and Luke were authored by the same person is far from unanimous among scholars, however predominant it may be. In my opinion, we don't have to present both sides of the debate on this page, and I have not tried to.  It is much more appropriate to the page Authorship of Luke–Acts, which should be linked here.  I simply want the text to reflect the fact that identification of the two authors is a dominating (but not universal) scholarly opinion in the eye of Wikipedia, not a kick-the-tires, knock-on-wood fact.  See cites below.--Sfarney (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This question is a red herring. Vocabulary analysis demonstrates overwhelmingly that Luke and Acts share the same distinctive vocabulary (see, for example, "Goulder and the Gospels"). They could have been redacted by the same person, as opposed to same authorship, but there's little reason to doubt the two volumes are part of the same work. Ignocrates (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Child and offshoot articles should clearly be linked to. There is a question about how much content from those pages as per WP:SS should be included here, and what it should be. Those questions would probably be best addressed at that article, however, rather than this one. And the fact that there is not unanimity is not that important, so much as the matter of degree of dispute and nature of the disputants. WP:FRINGE and other guidelines can apply in some cases. The best way to check these is to check the recent reference sources and any articles since then. John Carter (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Anno Domini vs Common Error nomenclature
Judecca XIII has re-installed CE nomenclature in three locations in this article (all other years are not annotated), and at the same time deleted the implication that Palestine was part of the Roman Empire. JudeccaXIII does not explain her changes in detail but refers to a perceived Violation of WP:ERAS. This wikipedia guideline however argues against her change of nomenclature (AD/CE should be used only if there is a risk of confusion, and CE is restricted to scholarly religious articles rather than a non-specialist topic such as Acts), and offers no explanation for removing Palestine from the Roman Empire. If there are no well-founded dissenting views in the next few days, JudeccaXIII's changes are to be reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.38.59 (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two separate issues here: dating protocol (AD vs. CE) and grammar (to vs. in) and they should be treated separately. A Georgian (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, I am not a "her" but a "he." Second, you are to seek consensus not matter what you see as an issue because changing to BC/AD or BCE/CE without consensus will be considered an inappropriate change via issues with NPOV policy. That's why WP:ERAS states, "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change." — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For an article directed at a lay readership (such as Wikipedia) and especially for a New Testament topic, the BC/AD nomenclature is more widely intelligible and more appropriate. Not sure what Palestine has to do with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.102.201 (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The preposition dispute ("to" the empire vs. "in" the empire) is trivial - I'd just note that our article is using the wording of the source (see the cite at the end of the sentence in the article). The use of BC vs. CE is more substantial, though not much more - I'd suggest the OP or anyone else who thinks this important should open a new thread advocating a change if they think it important.PiCo (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Christianity spread TO the Roman Empire" does not make sense - it implies that Christ and Christianity originated outwith the Roman Empire. It is especially embarrassing to make such a basic mistake in the first sentence of a Wiki article. It really should be "Christianity spread within the Roman Empire". Can Pico arrange for an independent adjudicator to resolve the problem, if he/she intends to persist?
 * Me? I don't care what preposition is used, so long as the language is clear. "To" is the word used in the the source, but "throughout" would do just as well so far as I'm concerned.PiCo (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit request: Erroneous quote claiming discrepancy Acts vs Paul
Could an editor please remove the following lines:

"An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1–31, 22:6–21, and 26:9–23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17–24)."

In fact this Galatians passage explicitly says Paul visited Christians in Judea after that event: see Galatians 1:18.

And may I suggest such basic mistakes can in future be more quickly identified and fixed if you remove the semi-protection from this article? Judging by the discussions above, it appears to me that PiCo is the major obstacle to improving the article. It would be good to open up to experts. Thanks. 86.170.123.36 (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * done A Georgian (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Reverted, because the source (Perkins) is reflected correctly. She says that in Galatians 1-17 Paul says he remained unknown to Christians Christians in Judea after his conversion. This is accurate: "I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; they only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they praised God because of me." PiCo (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Bulletin for Biblical Research
A recent edit citing a scholarly paper published in the Bulletin for Biblical Research was reverted on the grounds that this journal is not a reliable source. This claim requires justification since the Bulletin for Biblical Research is an academic quarterly annual journal published by Eisenbrauns, an imprint of Pennsylvania State University Press, an academic publisher for over 60 journals. The editor of this journal is Craig S. Keener and I've seen tons of the standard major/mainstream NT & OT scholars publish in it including Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckham, Klyne Snodgrass, Gordon Fee, Darrell L. Bock, Richard Hess, Douglas J. Moo, Donald Hagner, Michael Bird, Stanley E. Porter, Joel B. Green, John H. Walton, Andreas J. Köstenberger, James VanderKam and many others. On what justification is this not a reliable source?


 * It's a bit misleading to justify the Bulletin on account of its links to Penn State. Penn State acquired Eisenbrauns in 2017; the article in question was published in 2008. There's no reason I know of to think that Penn State's editorial control over the Bulletin is so strong that it manages to reach back in time.


 * The critical question for deciding whether inclusion is what kind of vetting process is used for articles that go through it. And is it peer-reviewed? No. Is it controlled by an organization (Institutes for Biblical Research) dedicated to preserving one particular religious viewpoint (evangelical Christianity)? Yes it is. So it's by no means an independent third-party guarantor of quality. Leaving aside any possible arguments about post-2017 articles, the pre-2017 Bulletin for Biblical Research is clearly a non-peer-reviewed outlet for religiously committed work.


 * Whether a number of illustrious scholars have deigned to have material published in the Bulletin doesn't by itself make the Bulletin reliable. The issue of venue matters. Take, for example, N. T. Wright. Taking the year 2008, for example, he was both a well-published biblical scholar and the Bishop of Durham. If he published an article about Jesus in a solid peer-reviewed journal what he did there probably meets WP:RS. If he preached a sermon about Jesus in his capacity as Bishop of Durham, that would be another matter, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. While I, personally, would be quite happy to listen to the Bishop of Durham preaching, I wouldn't presume to put that kind of stuff on Wikipedia. The pulpit he stands behind isn't a reliable source, and that would still apply even if that pulpit was called a Bulletin and had lots of other folks just as reputable as he preaching sermons that contained footnotes. Alephb (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, you make a fair point about venue but even before 2017, BBR was published by Eisenbrauns, and Eisenbrauns has always been an internationally respected publisher. According to Penn State, it acquired Eisenbrauns because of its academic respectability. "The Pennsylvania State University Press has announced that Eisenbrauns is now an imprint of the press. This new partnership ensures the continuation of Eisenbrauns's internationally renowned publishing program and reaffirms PSU Press’s commitment to relevant, foundational scholarship." https://news.psu.edu/story/489337/2017/10/20/academics/penn-state-university-press-acquires-eisenbrauns-new-imprint
 * Eisenbrauns is certainly peer-reviewed and BBR has always had a full editorial board since Bruce Chilton in 1991 when it became an annual journal (in 2008 the main editor was Richard Hess). I have no idea why you think it isn't. So what is your view on this?70.27.185.214 (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * For the sake of argument, I'll take your word for it that BBR was peer-reviewed in 2008. There's still the question of what exactly it means to be peer-reviewed in a journal dedicated to a particular ideological litmus test. The Journal of Creation, after all, is a "peer-reviewed" outlet for creationist literature. Not that I'm saying BBR is nearly as far out there, of course. But IBR isn't an organization that's dedicated to following evidence wherever it leads. It limits its membership and goals around a particular set of religious beliefs, including (from its Articles of Incorporation):


 * (a)        To foster the study of the Scriptures within an evangelical context as defined by the Christian confessional affirmations of the Corporation, including the following:
 * 1.         The unique divine inspiration, integrity and authority of the Bible.
 * 2.         The deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
 * 3.         The necessity and efficacy of the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ for the redemption of the world.
 * 4.         The historical fact of his bodily resurrection.
 * 5.         The presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the work of regeneration and for the understanding of the Scriptures.
 * 6.         The expectation of the personal return of our Lord Jesus Christ.


 * Personally, I think an ideological litmus test like that runs counter to what Wikipedia is looking for in terms of WP:INDEPENDENT sources. However, it's such a vague claim that being made (basically that Luke-Acts "can be compared with Greco-Roman historiography", and what couldn't be compared?) that in my mind keeping the edit out is not something I'd want to devote much time to. If you put it back in, and no one else objects, I don't think I'll argue any further. If I had my druthers, though, anything by IBR would be identified in the main text as coming from an evangelical organization, though. In the same way that if there were a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to advocacy scholarship from within an atheist, Muslim, or Buddhist perspective I'd want that fact to be clearly visible to readers. Alephb (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll place it back in. Just because I don't want to feel like I'm doing this without your full being on board, I will mention some other things. First of all, BBR still has its "evangelical guidelines" even after Penn State acquired it. So it appears to me that, though it does have the "guidelines", respected academic publishers like Eisenbrauns and Penn State are confident that this isn't mutilating the scholarship. Tyndale Bulletin has similar guidelines, but it is also considered highly credible in NT studies (see their Doctrinal Basis here: http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/doctrinal-basis). Secondly, the paper does provide citations for its claim. Here is what the footnote for comparing Luke to Greco-Roman historiography;


 * For Luke, see Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (ed. C. H. Gempf; WUNT 49; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989); Rainer Riesner, “Lukas (1. Jh. n.Chr.),” in Hauptwerke der Geschichtsschreibung (ed. Volker Reinhardt; Stuttgart: Kröner, 1997), 391–94; Ben Witherington III, New Testament History: A Narrative Account (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 174–78.


 * If you would be comfortable adding in the citation to Colin Hemer and Ben Witherington's monographs along with the BBR article in order to strengthen the reliability of this citation, I'll also add these in. The last thing I'll mention (unless someone continues the discussion) is that I think Wikipedia needs to create a list of NT journals that are considered reliable and can be used for their NT articles. Since I'm not a Wiki editor and you are, I'll leave that with you (though I'd be happy to offer my suggestions). 70.27.185.214 (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I just want to take this opportunity to protest the false statement that "consensus on the talk page" has been reached. There's no consensus here.


 * You are right that there are a lot of confessional journals operating in the field of N.T. studies. And that, while understandable, is still (I think) an issue when it comes to Wikipedia's policy on what is or isn't an independent, reliable source. And perhaps you already picked this up (always hard to tell with an IP editor), reliable has a very specific sense in Wikipedia jargon, as spelled out on the WP:RS page.


 * When it comes to a list of sources that are considered reliable, the question will always be reliable for what? And that's going to frustrate attempts to have a single standardized list. That and the fact that Wikipedians in general are all over the place on how they read some of the finer points of biblical studies.


 * Regardless, I appreciate that you're clearly putting some care and thought into how you source things. I'd recommend, if you're going to keep the Witherington and Hemer citations in, that they be moved forward to right after the words "Acts is widely thought of as history", because that's really what they're sources for -- they're not there to witness what Schnabel said. If you don't have any objection, I'll make that little move myself. Alephb (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry for misconstruing it as a consensus. I moved the references, as well as did a rewording that I'd be open to your thoughts on. I changed "Acts is widely thought of as" to "Scholars widely think of Acts as" (something like that) in order to clarify the "who" is when it comes to this thinking. I also went over Wiki's criterions for reliability when it comes to scholarship -- I think the relevant part to this discussion is that "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view" in this context. This can be said to be the case with BBR given its guidelines, but as I think care is taken here considering Tyndale Bulletin has similar guidelines and is widely considered a highly credible journal in NT studies (not to mention that even after Penn State's acquistion, it still has the guidelines), and I place significant value on Eisenbrauns being the publisher of BBR -- not to mention, the editor of BBR at the time when the paper was published was Richard Hess (and the current editor is equally credible). 70.27.185.214 (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

"In either case, there is evidence that Acts was substantially revised in the 2nd century."
Can someone (perhaps PiCo) explain exactly what is meant by "In either case, there is evidence that Acts was substantially revised in the 2nd century."? My initial assumption (as the cited pages do not appear to be available on Google Books) was that this was referring to the divergent manuscript traditions. However, PiCo's latest revision states that this isn't the case. So I'm not really sure what is being said (and would prefer to avoid making any more assumptions), so some clarification would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrote (talk • contribs) 02:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry Dbrote, I didn't notice this was here (I have no watchlist). The source for the statement that Acts was being revised into the 2nd century is Perkins' book, pages 250-253. On page 250 she says there are two pieces of evidence for this, one the differing texts, the other the Marconite revision which Marcion actually claimed was a stripping-away of later additions. But my reason for moving the sentence has nothing to do with this, it's just that it seems to me to be more closely related to the composition-history of Acts than to textual history.PiCo (talk) 06:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. How does this proposed rewrite look then, PiCo? I'm trying to avoid duplicative information and undue weight.
 * While no proposed date for the composition of Acts is universally accepted, the most common scholarly position is to date Luke–Acts to 80-90 AD, on the grounds that it uses Mark as a source, looks back on the destruction of Jerusalem, and does not show any awareness of the letters of Paul (which began circulating late in the first century). The earliest possible date for the composition of Acts is set by the events with which it ends, Paul's imprisonment in Rome c.63 AD, but such an early dating is a minority position. The last possible date would be set by its first definite citation by another author, but there is no unanimity on this; some scholars find echoes of Acts in a work from c. 95 AD called I Clement, while others see no indisputable citation until the middle of the 2nd century. A minority of scholars, necessarily in the latter camp, conclude that Acts dates to the 2nd century, believing that it shows awareness of the letters of Paul, the works of Josephus, or the writings of Marcion.
 * Dbrote (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Dbrote That's fine by me, but is it necessary to have so many sources for that final point? One is enough.PiCo (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll drop Perkins and Keener. I think Boring and Powell manage to cover everything in the last sentence.Dbrote (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Communism
http://www.thebricktestament.com/acts_of_the_apostles/accept_communism_or_die/ac04_32p34-35.html Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you really using a comic to sustain your claim? ―Eduardogobi (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyways, the main issue regarding this is that the Outline section should refer only to articles on New Testament episodes, not doctrines. Linking “Everything is shared” to “Christian communism” is the same as linking “Pentecost” to “Roman Catholic Church” or “Crucifixion” in Template:Content of Matthew to “Judaism”. ―Eduardogobi (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol, it was humor, but you get the point: there is Communism in the Bible. In fact Christian Communism has inspired Marx to become a Communist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Dating the book of Acts
Shouldn't there be a view that Acts could be dated earlier than 80-90 CE because it does not mention Paul's death or any of Nero's persecutions. Tacticus and Suetonius mentions the persecutions (64 CE proposed by what I can find on wikipedia) so I don't think Luke would have ended it with the imprisonment of Paul if Paul was put to death as it's said by Eusebius and other mentioned in Neros page under Reputed martyrdoms of Peter and Paul. Also there is no mention of any Roman persecution in the book of Acts if there was wouldn't we have read more of it in Acts? I don't if there is much support for the claim but I think it's worth searching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.233.103.37 (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want more detail on why scholars date Acts as they do, you can go to the various sources given in the article. I don't think the article itself needs any more detail than it already has.PiCo (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've expanded the entry on dating a little to cover the current scholarly consensus and reasons for it. An early date simply isn't accepted in scholarly works these days, which is why our article pretty much ignores it too.PiCo (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * sort of on the same point I read "it does not show any knowledge of Paul's letters, a fact which also supports a late date". I haven't got a clue how the two parts of this sentence are supposed to hang together. Surely if the L-A author displayed a knowledge of the Pauline letters, that would prove that he or she was writing later.  Tigerboy1966  22:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree: the lack of reference to or quotation from Paul's letters argues for Acts being written at an earlier date, before the letters became generally known outside the specific churches to which they were addressed. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Article amended accordingly - BobKilcoyne (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

In the sentence about the early date for Acts, the text "but such an early dating is a minority position" is not useful, as it simply repeats what was said in the previous sentence, and is inconsistent with how the information is added in the sources that are provided. One editor is repeatedly adding this line into the sentence, without providing any justification, except to say "it's useful". The information, as it is presented in the original sources is satisfactory, and the edits to add in the redundant information just seem to be an attempt to promote a personal belief of the editor. Theobvioushero (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Theobvioushero: it's best to start a new thread for a new conversation rather than reviving one which is in this case four years old and settled long ago.
 * I gather that your objection is to the clause "an early dating is a minority position" (with "early" meaning 63 AD, as the complete sentence makes clear), in the sentence "[t]he earliest possible date for the composition of Acts is set by the events with which it ends, Paul's imprisonment in Rome c. 63 AD, but such an early dating is a minority position." The sentence as a whole has three sources, the books by Boring, Keener, and Theissen & Merz; Boring supports the statement that the earliest possible date is 63 AD ("The earliest possible date ... [is] about 62"); Keener says that while this argument is superficially attractive it is "open to considerable challenge"; and Theissen & Merz is the source for the statement that it is a minority position.Achar Sva (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence is not isolated. Earlier in the paragraph it is stated "the most common scholarly position is to date Luke–Acts to 80–90 AD". The other positions mentioned are already implied to be minority positions. Dimadick (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * My apologies for not starting a new section. Since a discussion is already underway here, it seems like it is best to keep it in the current location, but I can create a new section if that is prefered.


 * Similar to what the other editor has said, I am not disputing that the early dating is the minority position. Instead, I am pointing out that this fact does not need to be stated twice in the first two sentences of the paragraph. The statement "but such an early dating is a minority position" does not add any new information, since it is already implied by the previous sentence. The flow of the paragraph would be improved, and no information would be lost, if this duplicate information is removed from the second sentence. Theobvioushero (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I assume this para was put in the article to explain the reasons for the various scholarly positions. I'd be happy to see everything after the first sentence removed (from "While no proposed date for the composition of Acts is universally accepted, the most common scholarly position is to date Luke–Acts to 80–90 AD, on the grounds that it uses Mark as a source, looks back on the destruction of Jerusalem, and does not show any awareness of the letters of Paul (which began circulating late in the first century)". However, that would be a large edit, and you could expect pushback simply for that reason. On the matter of putting this conversation where it is, since it's your thread I can't touch it, but you could consider moving it to the bottom of the page with a new header.Achar Sva (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not necessary to make such a large edit. Simply removing the second part of the second sentence would suffice.
 * However, I wouldn't be opposed to replacing that text with new information, such as "based on the absence of information about later events, such as the death of Paul or he destruction of the temple". This edit would be consistent with the other sentences, is already supported by the Keener source, and keeps the focus of the paragraph on the reasons for the various scholarly positions, which, as you point out, seems to be the overall purpose of the paragraph.
 * But either way, the paragraph would benefit from removing the redundant information in second part of the second sentence. Theobvioushero (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I revised the para to give the essentials of the scholarly positions, using Boring. Achar Sva (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Christian Scriptures/'New Testament'
After 2,000 years, it's hardly a 'New Testament, therefore, I added... Christian Scriptures/'New Testament'. 2601:589:4801:5660:B1C7:7A45:9E90:1C31 (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Fringe view
The view that the Gospel of Luke is orthonymous is WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)