Talk:Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles

inconsistency or unclear reference
"The debate on the historicity of Acts became most vehement between 1895 and 1915. Ferdinand Christian Baur viewed it as unreliable..."

The way it is written, it suggests Baur was involved in the debate 35 years after he was dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.164.243.230 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2022 (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)

I agree. The article seems overly skeptical. For example, to say "By 2017 consensus had emerged among scholars[citation needed] that the letters of Paul are more reliable for information about Paul than Acts ..." is just inaccurate, if not plain wrong. The general historicity has been generally accepted, and the discussion moved onto Luke's theology. That is not to say that it has all the answers, as some things are omitted, such as Paul's time in "Arabia" (Galatians 1:17). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross.woods (talk • contribs) 05:03, 12 April 2021 (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)

It is clear that Luke had a particular purpose in mind and chose to follow a particular line of events. Any historian must have criteria on what to include and what to exclude, and Luke quite clearly had a theological purpose. It doesn't necessarily follow, however, that Luke was inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross.woods (talk • contribs) 05:09, 12 April 2021 (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)

"Lüdemann quoted by Matthews, is not a direct quote. Why doesn't the author quote Lüdemann, himself. Lüdemann, btw is an atheist so Im going to doubt that he thinks Jesus ressurection is historical. Spiker 22 (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologetic?
The article reads like an apologetic description. It oddly mentions criticism from the 1895-1915 as if Acts was in doubt way back then, but not today. It dismisses criticism with the apologetic lable, "hypercriticsm" (without even bothering to detail Harnack's position)but never mentions the well known work of Pervo, Tyson et al? No mention of the Acts Seminar and the author seems to think historical reliability is based on getting names right. Lastly, there's this howler, "Lüdemann acknowledges the historicity of Christ’s post-resurrection appearances."

He does not. 1.) Lüdemann thinks Peter's experience was triggered by guilt, he certainly doesn't think Jesus ACTUALLY appeared to the disciples. That would be a bizzare conclusion for a non Christian. 2.) Does the author seriously think phrases like " Christ's post-ressurection appearsnces" exemplify wiki standards!? Spiker 22 (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * We're talking about current scholarship here, and it never mentions "but not today" it says it was most vehement back then. In much the same way critical scholars though John was unreliable because the Pool of Siloam wasn't found so it was assumed > writer of John didn't know the place he was talking about, since then archaeologists have found the Pool of Siloam so the debate over that is settled and the argument is not "vehement". In similar ways, read the article.
 * You seem to reference the Acts Seminar, which is an offshoot of the controversial Jesus seminar and contains Christ-myth theorists and specifically excluded any Christians from the panel and included specific Jewish scholars (who clearly deny Jesus). How is that "balanced"?
 * If you actually bothered to read Lüdemann's quote it says he acknowledges the historicity of Christ’s post-resurrection appearances because he explains them as multiple visions (pre-supposing Naturalism...but that's another discussion).
 * you state "post-resurrection appearances (sp)" is not up to WikiPedia standards but there's a whole article on them: Post-Resurrection_appearances_of_Jesus Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I cannot speak for the other editor, but "Christ's post-resurrection appearances" (in the context of their historicity being acknowledged) and "Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus" (which is specifically referencing the appearances in the gospels, and that they exist in the literature is not disputed by anyone) are not even close to being on level with one another regarding neutrally worded phrasing. I will take a stab at paraphrasing passage in question.. if I can get around to it, I might forget though. Firejuggler86 (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)