![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Joshua-Schachterle-Bart-Ehrman-Author-1-1.png\" "\\"Joshua")
<\/span><\/p>\nWritten by <\/a>Joshua Schachterle, Ph.D<\/a><\/p>\n Author | Professor | Scholar<\/p>\n Author | Professor | BE Contributor<\/p>\n Verified! See our editorial guidelines<\/a><\/p>\n Verified! See our guidelines<\/a><\/p>\n Edited by Laura Robinson, Ph.D.<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\nDate written: September 20th, 2023\n \nDate written: September 20th, 2023<\/p>\n Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. – Dr. Bart D. Ehrman<\/p>\n Scholars have long debated the historical reliability of Acts. The text (full title \u201cThe Acts of the Apostles\u201d) claims to be a history of the earliest Church. But is it? Or is it merely a mythological story written to shore up Christian claims? You\u2019ll see in this article that while some of the events in Acts agree with other ancient writers like Josephus, its portrayal of Paul is a bit more problematic.<\/p>\n One of our first steps in assessing Acts\u2019 historical reliability is determining who wrote the book of Acts. Was the author an eyewitness to the events he describes? If so, then we might regard the events described in Acts as more historically accurate than events in second or third-hand sources. <\/p>\n Like many New Testament books, Acts was written anonymously and originally had no title. The title \u201cActs of the Apostles\u201d isn\u2019t used until decades after the book was written. Unfortunately, this means that we don\u2019t know the individual who wrote it.<\/p>\n Traditionally, Luke-Acts was ascribed to Luke, a companion of Paul mentioned in one of Paul\u2019s undisputed letters (Philemon 1:24)<\/strong>. He is also mentioned in Colossians 4:14 and 2 Timothy 4:11, two letters Paul probably didn\u2019t write. However, there is little to no evidence of this and most scholars dismiss the idea.<\/p>\n Although many people don\u2019t know it, perhaps because they\u2019re separated in the Bible, the author of Acts is also the author of Luke<\/a><\/strong>. In fact, scholars usually refer to \u201cLuke-Acts\u201d as one unit. How do we know the same author wrote both books? Let\u2019s examine the prefaces of the two books. Luke starts like this:<\/p>\n Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses<\/strong> and servants of the word, I, too, decided, as one having a grasp of everything from the start, to write a well-ordered account for you, most excellent Theophilus<\/strong>, so that you may have a firm grasp of the words in which you have been instructed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The author then goes on to write about the life and death of Jesus in his Gospel.<\/p>\n The book of Acts then starts like this:<\/p>\n In the first book, Theophilus<\/strong>, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day when he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n When you look at the two prefaces together, you notice two things. First, both are writing to or for someone named Theophilus. Who is this?<\/p>\n The ancient Mediterranean social world was a complicated web of patrons and clients. For example, a patron might fund an endeavor, like the writing and research of a book. The client, then, would do the research and writing using those funds. Theophilus was likely the patron of the author of Luke-Acts, <\/strong>paying for him to write and research his book.<\/p>\n The second thing you notice is that the preface to Acts says what the author did in the Gospel of Luke. Taken together, this demonstrates that the two were originally one unit. The first part described <\/strong>Jesus and his significance. The second described the formation of Jesus-following communities after Jesus\u2019 death and resurrection<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Most of Acts is written in the third person. However, in chapter 16, the author starts using \u201cwe\u201d language. In other words, he includes himself in the events. Was he an eyewitness to the events he\u2019s describing? Most scholars, including Bart Ehrman<\/a>, don\u2019t think so.<\/p>\n It is more likely that the \u201cwe\u201d passages were added by the author to grant authenticity and credibility<\/strong>. This was a relatively common practice for 1st-century authors.<\/p>\n FREE COURSE!<\/p>\n WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN<\/p>\n Raw, honest, and enlightening. Bart’s story of why he deconverted from the Christian faith.<\/p>\n __CONFIG_colors_palette__{“active_palette”:0,”config”:{“colors”:{“10c55”:{“name”:”Main Accent”,”parent”:-1}},”gradients”:[]},”palettes”:[{“name”:”Default”,”value”:{“colors”:{“10c55”:{“val”:”rgb(255, 133, 34)”}},”gradients”:[]},”original”:{“colors”:{“10c55”:{“val”:”rgb(19, 114, 211)”,”hsl”:{“h”:210,”s”:0.83,”l”:0.45,”a”:1}}},”gradients”:[]}}]}__CONFIG_colors_palette__ <\/span> GET FREE ACCESS!<\/strong><\/span><\/span> <\/a> <\/p>\n Over 6,000 enrolled!<\/em><\/p>\n Since Luke-Acts was one unit, we can trust that the two books were written at roughly the same time. Charles Talbert<\/a> writes that the earliest it could have been written is 62 CE. Why? This is when Paul was imprisoned in Rome, which is mentioned in Acts.<\/p>\n However, most scholars place the date between 80-90 CE <\/strong>for several reasons. For one thing, the author of Luke-Acts used Mark as a source for his Gospel<\/a>. Mark<\/a> was written in 70 CE so Luke-Acts had to be written after that. Additionally, Paul\u2019s theology in Acts differs in many ways from that of Paul\u2019s actual letters<\/strong>. If the author was even aware of Paul\u2019s letters, he seems to have ignored much of their content.<\/p>\n Determining the sources for Luke-Acts involves a lot of speculation. A few of the sources are relatively certain, though. He had access to the Septuagint, \u2013 the Hebrew Bible translated into Greek \u2013 the Gospel of Mark, and a lost source scholars call Q<\/a>. In fact, Ben Witherington<\/a> demonstrates how some incidents from Mark are transposed onto the stories of the apostles in Acts.<\/p>\n It seems unlikely, however, that he had access to the letters of Paul. As I said above, his account and his theology differ from the letters significantly (more on that later).<\/p>\n So, is the book of Acts historically reliable?<\/p>\n We can answer this question in two ways, and both are important. The first is to compare Acts\u2019 depiction of Paul to Paul\u2019s undisputed letters.<\/a> The second is to compare Acts with other contemporary historical sources.<\/p>\n Charles Talbert points out several ways in which the Paul of Acts is different from the Paul of the letters:<\/strong><\/p>\n![\"Historical](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Historical-Reliability-of-Acts-Comparing-Lukes-Account-with-External-Sources.png\" "\\"Historical")
<\/span><\/p>\nUncovering Authorship – Who Wrote the Book of Acts?<\/h2>\n
Is the Author of Acts an Eyewitness?<\/h2>\n
When was Acts Written?<\/h2>\n
Where did the Author of Acts Get his Information?<\/h2>\n
![\"Acts](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Acts-of-the-Apostles.png\" "\\"Acts")
<\/span><\/p>\nIs the Book of Acts a Good Historical Source?<\/h2>\n
Two Pauls: Do Paul\u2019s Letters and Acts Agree?<\/h3>\n