Talk:Acts of the Apostles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

There are clearly two separate articles here where only one is needed. I'm going to try to combine them by moving material from the first article into the second, since the second article seems better organized. I'll probably also delete material from one or the other where it's clearly just redundant. I plan to do this a bit at a time, so please don't anyone be shocked if it looks messy for a little while, or assume that I'm just randomly deleting stuff. Suggestions of other ways to merge these are more than welcome, as is any help with the merging. Wesley

I wound up deleting much of the mat erial from Easton's Bible Dictionary, because much of it either duplicated the other part of the article, or was just too obviously biased. What's left probably has some NPOV issues as well, but I'll leave those to other editors for now. Wesley

You haven't yet put a link to this page on the List of religious topics.

Is there a reason why there's a link to a commentary by Nicholas Whyte, who has, as far as I know, no established reputation? Especially given the absence of 'respected' commentaries, such as Henry or Calvin... If there's no rejection, I'll be deleting it. --patton1138 01:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedian finds tone "archaic and pretentious"

On 12 May 2005 User:Slocombe applied a tag citing this article for its Tone, which Slocombe found "archaic and pretentious". Slocombe is better known for her insightful editing at such articles as David Koresh, Branch Davidian, Indiana Jones, F.I.S.T., Reign of Terror and Jethro Tull (band). User:Slocombe has not begun a Userpage, though she has been editing off and on since January 2005.

I removed the Tone tag. --Wetman 00:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This entire article is RIDDLED with awful, inaccurate statements. Don't even know where to begin correcting it. Huge project here - the tone is not just archaic & pretentious, it's downright ignorant:

-"Others have also suggested that the book of Acts may have been written as a legal document..." - so every idea ever published is now suitable to include here? Is there no bar here, no minimum standard of evidence? -"Historical accuracy" - why even include this? what's the point, unless you're a religious fanatic bent on proving your faith here? -"Norman Geisler dates it as early as between 60-62..." who cares?? this guy is a right-wing religious fanatic - not a historian, not a published researcher. But there is a consistent agenda here to try to backdate canonical Christian texts, as if it somehow helps prove one's faith. There are NO respected scholars who believe this early date - not in any published, respected journal.

Nice of you to have read the article. However, we need to be careful not to correct imbalance with imbalance, because it will only produce more imbalance. I think your position is overstated and could be viewed as a strong POV. But any efforts for you to work here using reliable sources will be welcomed. Cheers, SAE (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Odd line

"Historical accuracy

Some people question the historical accuracy of this book of the Bible. They are wrong. It is completley accurate and agrees with everything that was occuring at that time. It is alike every other book of the Bible; perfect and without flaw. It should not be questioned."

Is this theologypedia now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.128.253 (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Edits

I have begun taking tautologies and self-congratulatory verbiage out and adding some contemporary balance, and I moved the sources citations to a new Sources section, but the sophistry of "Plan and Purpose" whether Episcopal or Jesuit, just wore me down... --Wetman 00:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Abort. I lost my editing and haven't the patience just now. 00:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

Okay, how can someone even read this? I can't imagine it being useful to anyone, anywhere. I really don't think that a scholarly discussion of all of the fancy ways that people are trying to figure out who wrote it really has a place in Wikipedia. Couldn't the entire paragraph on authorship be condensed into "The book of Acts is generally attributed to Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke"?

And what on earth is the point of the incredible bore involved in determining the date and place of writing. Is this information useful to anyone? I would think it would be much better to give a few notes on authorship and the best guesses for dates, and then just give a few paragraphs about the book's significance to the Christian faith. But that's just me. --Matt Yeager 21:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't write it, but I'd prefer the material on authorship stay in. Certainly it could use a good edit that would probably shorten it substantially. The language is too flowerly and academic for general readers; Maybe it's someone's theology assignment. Still, I find it interesting and I think it could be a useful reference.

--Tom harrison 02:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Most recent edit

Alright, I did it. I trimmed up the first two sections of the article, and then added a warning about the rest of it. If someone thinks the warning is tasteless, feel free to remove it. But I wasn't about to go through the whole rest of the article. (It really ought to be deleted; however, someone cared enough to write it, and probably would not appreciate my deletion of the rest of the article.)

Thoughts, anyone? --Matt Yeager 03:11, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think it reads much better now. I did take out your warning; I've moved it to my userpage in case I want it myself someday.

--Tom harrison 11:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much. If someone wants to take a stab at the later sections (I cleaned up the first two and made an attempt at the third), go right ahead. I didn't think that there was any way to take useful information from the latter sections (I thought it was all theological blabber that has no real place in an encyclopedia)... feel free to prove me wrong. --Matt Yeager 22:29, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Could we clear up the language?

The language used in much of the article seems disorganized and archaic; is it possible to make it more understandable?--Rob117 22:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• I really like the article as it stands (though I didn't write it). Much more thorough and better-sourced than most articles on New Testament books. Of course, the language can be clarified, but I worry about the content of the article being "dumbed down" or even deleted. For example, if all we said was "It is attributed to St. Luke, the author of the third gospel" (as suggested above) in the authorship section, what would even be the point of having an article? People want to find on Wikipedia as much accurate information as possible on subjects. But again, clarifying the language, explaining terms, and eliminating redundancy is good thing. Would someone who has a problem with it please make a list of the items that need work? --Peter Kirby 22:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I also think it's a bit biased toward the POV that Luke was the actual author. The article on St. Luke says his authorship of the gospel (and hence, Acts) doubted by a sizable number of scholars. If the author claims to have been an eyewitness to miracles, we should be strongly skeptical. The author may well have been a physician of Antioch, but that does not mean he was Luke. The miraculous feats he attributes to Paul, whom he claims to have travelled with, really count against him being an actual travel partner of Paul's.--Rob117 04:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• I have redone the "Authorship" section. --Peter Kirby 08:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Saying it's biased towards the POV of Luke authoring it is like saying that the Romeo and Juliet article is biased towards Shakespeare having written it. I mean, I have never heard anyone seriously dispute Luke being the author. It's clearly written in the same style as his eponymous Gospel, and claims to be the sequel to one of the Gospels. (And it would be very, very unlikely that someone would go to all the trouble of writing a Gospel and then attribute it to someone else). Sure, there are a few scholars who don't think he wrote it. There's also a few (presumably) who think Shakespeare didn't write R&J. Calling Luke the presumed author isn't really POV. It's basically an acknowledgement of an accepted fact. -- Matt Yeager

• Personally, I think that Luke was the author of Luke-Acts. However, the legitimate disagreement in scholarship prevents me from writing flatly "Luke wrote this." For one thing, the titular attribution "according to Luke" is widely believed to have been a later addition to the copies of the third gospel (as with the titles of John, Mark, Matthew, and many other ancient works). Regarding those scholars who dispute or disagree that Luke wrote the Acts and the third Gospel:

"Was in fact the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts a companion of the apostle Paul? A comparison of the Lucan and Pauline theologies shows that this question has to be answered negatively. ... In addition, Luke [so-called for convenience by this author] is not ocrrectly informed about important details in the missionary work of Paul. ..." (Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, Fortress Press: Mineapolis, 1998: pages 241-242)

"Although most modern scholars agree with the tradition that one author wrote both Luke and Acts, many do not agree with the traditional identification of the author as a companion of Paul. They point out that the author of Acts shows no acquiantance with Paul's literary activity or his major theological views..." (The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, HarperCollins Publishers: New York, 1996, page 629)

"From the facts adduced there is a sufficient base for inferring that the author of Acts was not a missionary companion of Paul." (Werner Georg Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, Abingdon Press: New York, 1975, page 183)

"But it is hardly conceivable that the author of Acts was a member of Paul's missionary staff." (Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, Fortress Press: Philadelphia, 1982: volume 2, page 310)

"Scholars are about evenly divided on whether this attribution to Luke should be accepted as historical, so that he would be the author of Luke-Acts." (Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday: New York, 1997, pages 267-268)

Note that for reasons of space (and time) I have quoted on this Talk page these conclusions shorn from their supporting arguments. So, while I support authorship by Luke, it would not be NPOV to declare it simply "an accepted fact." --Peter Kirby 09:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• And besides, how does giving an account of miracles count against him? To suggest that it counts against him presupposes the VERY opinionated POV that the account is false. (Naturally, if it's true, than including miracles is no slight on his authorship chances.) --Matt Yeager 09:04, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with you that Rob's argument is not fit for the Wikipedia article; further, I have problems with Rob's argument myself. Rob's argument is not the reason for the edits made. --Peter Kirby 09:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the fact is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone claims to have been an eyewitness to miracles, skepticism naturally arises to this claim. If someone claims to have seen his companion miraculously and instantaneously speaking fluently in a language he did not previously know, we need to be skeptical of this. Unless we are to accept the miracles as fact (which is what accepting Lukan authorship of Acts basically entails), the only other possibilities are 1)It was really written by a companion of Paul, and he's lying about the miracles, or 2)It was not written by a companion of Paul, but was pseudonymously ascribed to a companion of Paul by its author. Choice 2 is probably better, as pseudonymy was a very common feature in religious writings of this time period.

And no, I do not doubt that Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet; but then again he does not claim to have witnessed his companion miraculously speaking in tongues.--Rob117 13:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

"And it would be very, very unlikely that someone would go to all the trouble of writing a Gospel and then attribute it to someone else" -Actually, pseudonymy is pretty much universally conceded by critical scholars to be the case with the Gospel of John, Gospel of Matthew, and probably the Gospel of Mark. Pseudonymously ascribing your work to someone else in order to give it authority were very common in religious literature of the period.--Rob117 16:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the first statement in that no critical scholar views the gospels as pseudonymous because they are all anonymous (with the possible exception of John). The second statement, on the other hand, is basically correct. Stephen C. Carlson 05:17, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

The problem with that idea is that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all definitely alive at the time of the release of their respective Gospels, and probably John as well. One seriously doubts that they would ignore a Gospel (an account of something that Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to) being released with their names falsely attributed to them. Also, on Luke being an eyewitness: Paul certainly referred to Dr. Luke as a dear friend in Colossians 4:14; it's definitely plausible that he was a companion of Paul's. It's also obvious that he wasn't an eyewitness to everything in the book (for instance, Peter's stay in prison, or the stoning of Stephen); however, whoever wrote the book was either a witness to some of it, or lying through his teeth (remember the "we's" in some parts of the book).

Besides that, I have a problem with your logic. If the account is false (if Paul/Peter didn't really do the miracles), then one might as well call the whole Bible a sham (2 Timothy 3:16), which would mean that its authors were either hopelessly deluded or cruel conspirators, which, either way, means that the author of Acts would have no problem with inserting made-up miracles here and there.

In any case, I can't perceive of why being an eyewitness would be a blockade to either transcribing miracles that happened, or making up miracles that didn't. Or, as an example... if I told you that I saw a river part in two, you would presumably expect evidence before believing, right? What if I told you that someone else saw a river part in two? Would you somehow expect any less evidence? --Matt Yeager 20:37, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the Gospel of Matthew uses Mark as a source document, which casts doubt on the author being an eyewitness. John's description of the politics of early 1st century Judea is not very accurate. Neither Matthew nor John sounds like the account of an eyewitness. And how do we know if they were alive when the texts were written? The dates for the four gospels are generally given at between 70 and 100 AD, long after the events they narrate. Additionally, them being alive at the time does not preclude pseudonymy. --Rob117 04:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't see how Matthew (or whoever)'s use of Mark casts doubt on his being an eyewitness. Anyone can see that the author of Matthew used multiple sources (he certainly wasn't around for Jesus' birth, among other things). How does one of those sources being a fellow Gospel discredit Matthew's authorship of the Gospel?

By the by, I've only heard of a date from 60-70 AD for (at least) the first three Gospels, which would mean that all of them probably were alive. I just can't see anyone passing off, say the Gospel of Mark while Mark was still alive without him raising a major fuss. And I can't see them releasing the Gospel of Mark posthumously. Remember, to the Christians, the story of Jesus was of the highest importance. And of the four Gospels, Mark's was the first. People would wonder why Mark had never released the Gospel and it only found its way out after he died.

You seem to raise no other points. While I definitely respect your point of view, it would seem to me like you've given no real reason why any author(s) other than the ones traditionally named should be assigned to the Gospels, and more relevantly, to Acts. If you feel I've overlooked something, holler, but I think that it would be best to leave this be. --Matt Yeager 05:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't change the fact that most critical scholars assign Mark, Matthew, and especially John to anonymous writers using a pseudonym- this is pointed out by Encarta Encyclopedia, as well as the Wikipedia articles about these three gospels. I am aware that Luke and Acts are still attributed to Luke by about 50% of critical scholars, although I personally can't see why.

The point I'm trying to make is that pseudonymy was extremely common among religious texts of this period. Anonymous writers wanted to give their work authority, and ascribed it to an important figure.

As for the dates, you seem to be aware of the traditional dates assigned to the gospels, which put Matthew at around AD 40, Mark at around 50, Luke at around 65, and John at around 90. The dates assigned by most critical scholars however, are different- Mark is put at around 70, Matthew and Luke at around 80, and John at around 90. See Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Luke, Gospel of John for the dates.--Rob117 18:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you actually trying to quote Wikipedia to prove something? Wikipedia is not a viable reference. (And in any case, those articles give a wild range of dates, from 40 AD to 160 AD, along with references to scholars that are both for and against the traditional authors.)

More to the point... actually, looking back at what you've written, you've moved from attacking the tone of the article, to the authorship, to the book's inclusion of miracles, to the naming of the Gospels, to the dates of authorship... I'm struggling to find your point in all this. I am really, really sorry, if this sounds mean... but it looks like you're just trying to pick a fight however you can. I'm not sure how to say this, but I think it's time you let this go. --Matt Yeager 18:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

In reply to Matt Yeager:

"People would wonder why Mark had never released the Gospel and it only found its way out after he died."

Uh...I don't think texts were 'released' in the ancient world the way they are today by Random House. All the texts of the NT were written down to help spread the word and organize the many different interpretations of what really happened to Jesus.

If you drop the assumption that Mark (or any Biblical author) HAD to be alive when his work was 'released', it makes perfect sense: these texts were written long after Jesus lived, and were simply assigned to various figures mentioned in the texts--simple. Why is this so hard to believe? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.71.58.135 (talk • contribs).

I think I ought to respond to this, but I'm not sure how. First off, John Mark and Luke aren't mentioned by name in any of the gospels, and John doesn't give his own name (though we figure out who he is through the other accounts). Mark's a vaguely important figure in Acts, I guess, but Luke is hardly mentioned at all in the Bible. Those are two rather peculiar names to choose to attach to a Gospel. Anyways, your point was simply that the NT wasn't "released" in the normal fashion--however, that's not exactly true. Read Colossians 4:16 sometime--it says "After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea" (NIV). All these letters were written down and passed around (roughly equivalent to texts being "released" by a publisher), and many refer to "the gospel".

You offer not even an inkling of a reason to drop the assumption that any author had to be alive when his work was released, and I just kinda gave some nifty evidence that Colossians, for its part at least, was almost certainly released while its author (hint: Paul) was still alive. I don't really get your point aside from that. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What else needs cleaning up?

I redid the Authorship section already, and I think it should be good and readable. (Maybe I could get some feedback on that.) What else needs cleaning up? --Peter Kirby 05:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not too bad. I'm not sure I'm happy with the Luke was a woman tidbit. For example, how does Helms deal with the masculine particle the author applied to himself in Luke 1:3? Stephen C. Carlson 05:13, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

• You mean παρακολουθέω? Good point. I took out that bit. --Peter Kirby 05:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• That's it. (You cited the dictionary form, which might confuse someone else; the word as inflected is παρηκολουθηκότι.) Stephen C. Carlson 05:52, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

In the article it says that God may have spoken Aramaic, not Hebrew, to Paul. I will not dispute that, but I think some explanation would be appropriate. -BF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.229.253 (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Acts of the Holy Spirit

I found this mentioning in the opening paragraph to be a bit odd. I had never heard this title before, and the section does not give the source for such a title. I suppose I just found it odd, especially at the top of the text. Did someone in antiquity give it this name as well? Lostcaesar 21:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Removed as unsourced. Please supply a citation if and when this information is reintroduced.--Andrew c 17:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Structure

The two reference notes I have added in the section on 'Structure' are to books by David Gooding. They both use a rhetorical analysis of the text and its structure as an aid to exposition. Appendix 2 in his work on Acts answers the key question "If Acts is a carefully structured work, can it still be regarded as historically reliable?". DFH 19:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

There have been criticisms of the tone of this article-- much of the text was taken from a 19th century work. It was sometimes archaic in tone, overly verbose, etc. I've rewritten some of the sections, trying just to make things more straightforward and easier to read. I expanded the authorship section. I wrote a longer content summary.

I also should say that I actually wrote most of the rewrite a short time ago, so in copying it over, I may have inadvertantly deletes some of the more recent changes. In the next few days, I will try to do look at this history very closely and double check to make sure that didn't happen. If it did, I apologize, and obvious, feel very free to add those changes back in.

I hope everyone likes the rewrite and thinks it's an improvement! :)

--Alecmconroy 21:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro revert

I reverted an addition to the introduction which said it is "Luke's authorship remains highly likely."-- that's certainly a valid opinion, but I don't think that's verifiably factually. However, the point is taken, that section of the introduction didn't do a good enough job in conveying that Lukian authorship is not just some 'traditional' viewpoint that has since died out-- it is still quite alive and well, subscribed to by many, many people worldwide. So I added a sentence the intro to make it clear that this viewpoint is still a common one. I apologize for the oversight-- the way the intro was worded, it looked very much like "Once, people used to believe Luke wrote this, but now, everyone accepts that he didn't". Obviously, that is very much not the case. So, while I did revert the specific wording, thanks for out the oversight, and I hope the addition accomplishes 'spirit' of what was trying to be accomplished by saying Luke's authorship is highly likely.

--Alecmconroy 13:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of Two-source hypothesis

I added a diagram of the two-source hypothesis, and Lostcaesar reverted [1] saying "two source hypothesis has nothing to do with acts". He makes a good point, because presumably Q and Mark are not a direct source for Acts, only for Gospel of Luke. On the other hand, given the near-consensus that Luke and Acts were both by the same author, it seems reasonable to mention the hypothesis that the author of Acts had access to Q and Mark, even if they weren't direct sources for Acts itself.

What do people think? Is the two-source hypothesis worth a mention? --Alecmconroy 20:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Alec, I think you should put it over on the article about Luke's gospel, but its not a matter of concern for Acts. If Luke also wrote a book about fishing we wouldnt think Q theory any more relevant. Lostcaesar 22:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The fishing book analogy made me grin.  :) I mean, you definitely have a point, in that Mark cannot be THE principle source for Acts. But still, Luke and Acts are certainly more similar than Luke and Fishing. Let me assume, just for verbal convenience that 2-source hypothesis were true, and Luke really did rely upon those two sources. Even if Mark&Q weren't direct sources for Acts, surely something of those sources must "color" the composition Acts, theologically and otherwise.

More than that, though, I think in some cases, Mark&Q were direct sources for Acts (assuming, of course, the hypothesis were true). For example, surely the Great Commission in Acts might draw upon the Great Commission in Mark. Similarly (and these are just the connections I see off the top of my head), Mark 16:17 lists speaking in tongues as a sign of those who believe-- and then in Acts 2, we have the fulfillment of this prophecy, as the apostles speak in tongues. Surely, an author who had access to Mark and an oral tradition about apostles "speaking in tongues" would notice the connection and be sure to include that specific miracle in the text, based on its prediction in Mark. Some sources [2] list even more parallels between Mark and Acts: e.g. "casting out demons" in Mk16:17&Acts 5:16, 8:7, 16:16-18, 19:12, "taking up serpents" Mk16:18&Acts 28:3-6, "healing of the sick" Mk 16:18 & Acts 3:1-10, 5:16, 8:7, 19:12.

Another way Mark/Q could have colored Acts is via the Gospel of Luke. For example, there are numerous occasions where the apostles' actions in Acts are direct parallels of Jesus's actions in Luke (see here for a list). If Mark&Q were sources for Gospel of Luke, and Gospel of Luke was itself a source for how Acts was composed, then if Luke wrote Acts, we should most correctly say that Mark&Q were sources used by the author of Acts.

--Alecmconroy 23:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark 16:8-20 is a latter addition and the relation is probably the other way around, i.e. someone summarized material in Acts to finish the unfinished Gospel (Mark 8 was not the planned end since the sentence breaks off at a conjunction). Luke is clear about his sources at the beginning of his Gospel, and that might make a better reference than a mention of a hypothetical collection of says, which could only indirectly apply to Acts, which is a history of the early Church (rather than a Gospel, i.e. a biography of Jesus). The people who cast out demons in Acts are the apostles, not Jesus - same with the healings, so Q would not be a souce for this. All you really have then is the Great Commission - seems pretty thin to me. The fishing reference was of course a joke, but with a bit of a point since Luke does talk about fishing in both his Gospel and Acts. I just don't see the relevance, but hey I'm one opinion here. Lostcaesar 23:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I know it was a joke-- and a very good one at that, which makes a real point. Part of the issue here is that the common authorship of Luke and Acts has been so ingrained in me that I've long ago stopped thinking of "the two works Luke and Acts", but instead have thought "the one work Luke-Acts (which comes in two parts)". So, most of my additions to this article have been made with with an eye to mirroring them on the Gospel of Luke page once we polish them here. If we were writing a book or article that didn't have to be NPOV, I wouldn't even have two different articles, I'd just have one article on Luke-Acts. (though, of course, we shouldn't do that here, since it would be an article title that implies a POV).

You have a great point about Mark:8-20 being a later addition-- I knew that somewhere in my brain, but it didn't occur to me until you said it. Another point, which you didn't make but I'll go ahead and make it for you now that it occurs to me: Q can be defined in two ways. One thing Q might be is some single written document-- a lost Thomas-like sayings gospel. If that's the case, then presumably Q could have been a source for Acts (though highly unlikely). A second way to define Q, however, is if it's any number of sources common to Matthew and Luke: oral tradition, etc. In that case, then Q = (The intersection of Matthew and Luke) - Mark: the things commont to Matthew and Luke, but missing in Mark. From this point of view, Q absolutely CANNOT be a source for anythign in Acts that isn't also in Luke, by definition.

I tend to think that the two-source hypothesis deserves a mention, if for no other reason than background on the author. The sources the author had access to will also figure very prominently into the dating discussion, so the two-source hypothesis is relevant in that way even if it absolutely in no way were sources for Acts. My dream (faint hope?) would be to get some sort of text on Authorship, Dating, Sources, Place of Composition, etc that could be mostly harmonized between the articles on Luke and Acts, since all that should be the same for both. But we run into trouble with things like this, where Mark&Q were more "sources available to the author" than "sources for Acts". Could you think of a wording where we could discuss the two-source hypothesis in "sources", but somehow make it clear to the reader that by and large, those two sources were NOT the source for Acts itself? I guess we could just have that discussion under Dating, but it seems like it'd be easier to have that discussion in Sources, so that the narrative in Dating is a little less convoluted and involved.

--Alecmconroy 00:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the way to go from here is to find a source that discusses the possible relation between the hypothetical Q and Acts, and to summarize that scholar's point and include it as his view. Us discussing it any further would move into the realm of original research. If no such sorce is located it might be best to avoid the matter. Lostcaesar 08:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

New 'Themes' section

I rewrote the "themes and style" section because I felt like there were a couple of problems with the old "Plan and Purpose" section. One problem is that this is one of the sections that was taken from the 1991 Encyclopedia brittanica and although we've patched over some of the problems, it hasn't undergone a major rewrite until now. Our NPOV restrictions are a lot stricter than the EB's were. For example, the old version I replaced said "It is widely agreed that the book of Acts is the work of a skilled author"-- I certainly would agree with that, but it's not very "encyclopedic" of us to say it like that.

I kept the bullet points about the Holy Spirit and the universality of Christainity. The bullet point about "victory through suffering", I lumped in with the theme that everyone talks about with regard to Luke-Acts, namely the author's attention to the oppressed (e.g. persecuted, poor, women, etc). I also added a point regarding the stylistic choice of the focus on Speeches. Speeches are such a major facet of Act, it seems to merit a mention, and it makes sense to me for us to DESCRIBE the existence of all the speeches at some point in the text prior to our having the full debate about their historical accuracy.

One stylistic facet of Luke-Acts that I didn't mention was the parallels we see between Jesus and the Apostles and the parallalels between Peter and Paul. Usually, whenever Peter does something, Paul also does that same something. But, I'm undecided if this merits a mention in an introductory article like this, as it starts to get into NPOV for me to describe this as a "theme or a style" rather than just "a straightforward presentation of the way it was".

Is the formmatting I picked the best for this? I found that just including it as a giant list of paragraphs made it hard to follow. Similarly, the "speeches" point is a little barebones, so its exaspansion most welcome.

--Alecmconroy 00:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Summary section

I simplified some things in the summary section. One thing is to try to keep it in present tense-- present tense let's us make us clear we're conveying the content of Act, so we don't have to keep putting in NPOV-qualifying statments like "According to Acts", "In Acts", etc. Present tense lets us just tell the whole story in a straightforward pass.

I put the bibical citations inside footnotes tags so the text can be more readable. I also moved words like Nazarite and [[Antinomianism to the footnotes-- they're both excellent additions, but I think they're beyond the scope of an introductory article like ours-- it makes the reader stop and have to look up "what does THAT word mean". Ideally, this summary would just be a very quick, once-over that someone that we can provide for someone who's never even reat Acts. Something that gives the "broad strokes" without getting into too much detail. --Alecmconroy 19:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinks, like Nazarite, serve a purpose. There is no need to hide them or suppose they are beyond the average reader. This article should be encyclopedic, not elementary school. Events that happened in the past should be discussed using the past tense, there is no need to assume the reader hasn't yet mastered the past tense. In addition, your link to Xenoglossy is just a pov fork, probably a neologism as well. Edits to articles should be improvements, not giant steps backward. 75.0.11.210 20:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

So, here are some points of agreement and dispute:

• Xenoglossy-- I didn't make the article, and xenoglossy seems to in keeping with what's depicted in Acts, but I see that "speaking in tongues" redirects to Glossolalia, and Glossolalia discusses Xenoglossy and is a better article, so I see your point-- it's fine to just go ahead and link to Glossolalia. I wouldn't have thought to cover both varieties of speaking in tongues on Glossolalia, but since the authors there have thought to do that, I agree we should go ahead and just link to there.
• Expanded prayer section-- EXCELLENT. thank you for expanding that section.
• About Parenthetical citations. I know it's easy for us to get used to them, but I think a lot of readers have a hard time following sentences that have the parethetical reference format. Obviously, when we're composing in print, we have no choice but to use parenthetical, but here on the web, we have a much richer opportunity to use hypertext citations, which have the advantage of being easy to access and easy to read. In any case, I asked about this specific issue at the Village Pump, and was advised that they should be referenced as footnotes inside the ref tags ala the Wikipedia Manual of Style.
• POV pushing-- in a couple of your edits, you accuse me of POv pushing. Can I ask-- which POV do I have that I am pushing? I've spent a little bit of time trying to figure it out-- my best guess is that you don't accept that Luke and Acts have a common author, and object to my writing as if it were so. Am I right? Because I admit I haven't really covered that and I often do speak as if there were a _total_ agreement on that point, rather than just a wide consensus. Anyway, I'm sorry you think I'm POV pushing-- please help me to understand in what way you feel I'm doing that.
• I'm a little confused by this edit and revreted. The extent to which the universality of Christianity applies to other gospels, Christianity in general, or even Judaism in general is sort of off-topic. Most sources agree that Universality is a theme of Luke's writings, so we should mention here as a theme. But your addition makes an interesting point-- perhaps Gospel of Luke should have as section which compares and contrasts it with the other gospels.
• About Nazirite vow-- instead of saying "Nazirite vow" could we maybe EXPLAIN what a Nazirite vow is and link that explanatory text to the Nazirite page-- something like "sacred vow of purification" or other such wording? It's just that, as it is now, the sentence reads "Paul took a slithy tove along with some others"-- the sentence is incomprehensible to most readers.
• The same thing goes with "rumor of teaching Antinomianism"-- it just reads "Rumor of teaching Frungybarbalism" to most readers-- I don't object to the link, but can't we find a text that your average reader will understand without, necessarily, having to interrupt their reading to click on a link.
• Some of the "see alsos" are a little questionable. see also Prayer in the New Testament has a fine title, but the article isn't very relevant in its current form. see also Proselyte, see also Judaism and Christianity are also examples where it was hard to see the direct relevance to the sentence they were quoted in. see also New Covenant (theology) is better, though the linked-to article doesn't do a great job of making it clear.

--Alecmconroy 01:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. You seem to be pushing the notion that Luke-Acts is one work. They are two works most likely by the same author, Luke is about Jesus, Acts is about the Apostles, Luke uses Mark as a source, Acts uses Josephus as a source, etc.
2. Use of the present tense to describe past events is an unnecessary simplification.
3. This form: blah blah blah (19:2) is preferable over this form: blah blah blah [3]. They both occupy the same space and both "interupt" the sentence structure. The footnote (or ref) format requires you to click on it to find the verse being referenced, an unnecessary additional step avoided by the first format. The first format is also used by such standards as the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Jewish Encyclopedia. Once there are multiple verses or the reference is complex, then the footnote format is useful and avoids clutter. For example, blah blah blah [7] is preferable over blah blah blah (19:2, 22:5, 26:7-12) or blah blah blah (Bauer's Koine Greek Lexicon).
4. There is nothing wrong with trying to explain a term in common language, for example: sacred vow of purification. That would be making full use of the hypertext tool.

75.14.214.44 21:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Luke-Acts

I'm a little confused by your objection to the term "Luke-Acts", by which I mean, when I and other scholars use the term, it means we believe

1. Both Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by a common author
2. That the Gospel was written before Acts
3. That it is often useful to examine the two works together, for example, when considering the unique themes of their author.
4. That "Luke-Acts" is easier to write than "Luke and Acts"

If someone rejected the common authorship, I'd understand an objection to the term. But if you accept the common authorship but still object to the term, I tend to suspect you think it implies something that I don't believe it implies. For example, no one is saying that the two actually "one work". No one is, for example, implying that they aren't two distinct books. Nor does the term "Luke-Acts" imply that that they were both written simultaneously. Luke-Acts is just a name for a two-book series made up of Luke and Acts. But, if ya'll feel strongy about it, I'll try to stick to the more verbose phrasing "Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles"-- but I think the abbreviated "Luke-Acts" would be better.

Summary

I'd strongly suggest you edit in the present tense-- at some point we're going to have to harmonize the tenses, and I think I can make a good case that present is better than past-- but we can do that later if needed. I'm a little concerned that the short summary is becoming overly complex and hard to read, with the direction quotations, inline biblical references, "see also" links to articles with only tenuous connections, and a level of detail that might be a little more than what we're looking for here. That said, some of the changes you made are very good ones (e.g. removal of "famous", changing Paul from "central theme" to "main character", and many others). So I'd say it's definitely productive for us for you to do what you're doing, and if the end product isn't as brief as we'd like, we could always condense it down again, and use the expanded text you're writing as the kernel for a larger, more detailed description, included according to Summary Style. So, good job!

The Text, not the Events

There are a couple things I'll throw out there for you, as suggestions. One is that we should try to keep the focus of the summary section on the content of Acts itself. Which is to say-- it's important to describe the content of the book itself, rather than trying to describe the events the book refers to. So, while Early Christianity or Paul of Tarsus talks directly about the historical events and personages, this article talks about the book itself. I know that's more of a purely philosophical distinction to make, since the two are so closely related-- how do you distinguish between a history book and the history IN the book?

The difference is that the Paul of Tarsus article should work hard to incorporate as many sources as possible, weighting them according to their historical reliablity. In contast, this article should favor Acts itself, mentioning other sources only to Compare/Contrast them with Acts. Since Acts is the best and only source for many of the events in Acts, the distinction is often meaningless anyway.

Anyway, I just say all that in case it helps ya'll think about things. I know I've been in academia too long when I start telling people "Be sure not to write about the history-- instead write about the writing about the history". But, what can I say-- I find the distinction useful, and it helps me keep focused, so, I thought I'd share, just in case it helps ya'll too.

The one thing that is, however, absolutely essential is that the reader be able to know what came from Acts and what came from other sources (usually the Pauline Epistles). So, in that instance, the distinction is critical. While the Paul of Tarsus article could comingle sources freely, we cannot.

Biblical cites

I still think the cites are better in hypertext form, and I think that Wikipedia has standardized on that style in its manual of style, but I won't belabour that point now. The article is far from perfect right now, so if that's the citation style you're most familiar with, go with it for the time being. I think we'll have to harmonize the citation style with the manual of style sometime between now and becoming a featured article, but again, I'll be happy if we can just get an article where all the text is less than 90 years old. :)

--Alecmconroy 10:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

More accurate summary of Paul's conversion

The ministry of Paul of Tarsus, formerly known as Saul, is the central theme of the second half of Acts. Initially, he is a zealous Pharisee with a history of persecuting Christians and ordering their executions (8:1–3). His conversion to Apostle to the Gentiles (or the uncircumcised Gal 2:7) requires explanation. His own explanation (Gal 1:11–24) is sparse. Acts 9:1–19, 21:1–22, 26:9–24 place it on the Road to Damascus, near Damascus. The NASB, NIV, and NRSV have: "suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him"; Gaus has: "suddenly a bolt of light from the sky enveloped him in a blaze." 26:13 says it was brighter than the sun. He fell to the ground and was blind for three days (9:9, 22:11). He heard a voice say: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" And in 26:14, it was in the Hebrew language, and added: "Isn't it hard to keep throwing yourself backward against the prod?" When Paul inquired further, the voice replied, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" (9:5, 22:8, 26:15). 26:20 says Paul went first to Damascus, then to Jerusalem, then to all of Judea, to the Gentiles also, preaching that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentence by their deeds. It is commonly believed that Saul changed his name to Paul at this time, but the source of this claim is unknown, the first mention of another name is later in Acts, (13:9), during his first missionary journey. 64.149.82.171 00:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My first reaction is that I don't think it's as readable as the current version. One of the downsides of a summary is that you will lose some of the detail. There are a LOT of things in Acts worth mentioning, but for the "micro summary", we only have a couple good paragraphs before our reader's gonna move on, and I worry that if we add two many details back in, then we won't have a "quick summary of Acts" anymore.

75/64-- you're obviously very intelligent and knowledgable on this subject! Make a name for yourself on Wikipedia by signing up, so we can communicate with you more easily, and you can have all the perks like a userpage and a talk page where we can reach you. :) --Alecmconroy 01:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

One solution, to me, would be for you to make an article called something like Contents of Acts of the Apostles where we can tell the story of Acts of the Apostles in greater detail, including a lot of the really interesting relevant commentary-- things LIKE Nazirite, Antinomianism, and New Covenant. I mean, if we only have those three extra details we want to add, then maybe don't need an expanded summary of Acts-- but I think someone as knowledgable as you could say quite a bit more intelligent, relevant things about about Acts, at a level of detail that might not be able to fit in a "brief summary", but which Wikipedia does desperately need. One way to do this would be to start off with one article that Contents of Acts of the Apostles or other such title, and then if needed, break that up by chapter, as Wikipedia has done with some of the chapters of the gospels (see Mark 16 for a good example).

We just may be working against each other for no good reasons. I'm trying to get a really simple, down to earth, undetailed overview of Acts-- an "Acts for Dummies" if you will, and you're trying to write a really detailed, highly accurate, well-thought-out commentary. Wikipedia could certainly use both, so why not do both, in two different places?  :--Alecmconroy 01:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's start with simple then. Then we can argue about how to add details without disturbing the simplicity. But I think your basic point, as I read it, is correct, that details of the Road to Damascus should be covered at Road to Damascus, details of Paul of Tarsus should be covered at Paul of Tarsus, etc. 75.14.214.44 21:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Dating of Acts

I'd like to expand the conservative viewpoint on the early dating of Acts. It is briefly mentioned in passing but the late date seems to have the preeminence. I'll give it a few days however to see if anyone wants to comment. I wouldn't want to dive into such a fine article without checking in first. JodyB 14:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Do you mean "have the preeminence" in scholarship or in this article? Anyway, reasons for the dating would also be good - e.g. no mention of Paul's death. StAnselm 23:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean preeminence in this article. The preeminence of the scholars is usually in the eye of the beholder. of course, the lack of mention of Paul's death can cut both ways and much seems to rest on the presuppositions of the scholar. JodyB 03:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I was looking at the opening section - "The traditional view is that both the two books were written c. 60 by a companion of Paul named Luke — a view which is still held by most scholars..." which doesn't really fit the section on Date. I think the whole Date section needs to be rewritten, actually. StAnselm 03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would take exception to the evidence for citations of Acts in Ignatius and Polycarp. They are incredibly weak. The citations in the article come from an admittedly amateur attempt at compilation. Without firmer support, there is no external evidence for Acts until much later in the 2nd century. Jbrid23456 (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Problematic links

I've deleted the duplicate links to the for-profit BibleGateway in the links section, and changed the link so it links to both the NIV and KJV. It's rather suspicious to me that a company would have more than one link in Wikipedia - this seems like an attempt to improve one's googlerank.Parodie 03:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous witness

In the section currently labeled "weasel words", I attempted to alter the sentence to reflect what I thought was the truth about the discrepancies between Paul's letters and the narrative of Acts which does not include Paul's journal. An anonymous (!) editor found such a commentary in the old Catholic encyclopedia. I was stunned, to say the least and will allow it, BUT a) technically we are not supposed to reference an encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, in any article. This could be circumvented since the quote quotes other sources which undoubtedly, the quoter has not read, nor have I. It's still a good answer though. b) since the CE was written at the turn of the 20th century, the authors quoted may not be "modern." But close enough for me, given 2000 years! c) while I cannot prove this, it is fatuous to think for any part of the bible, but particularly the New Testament, that early scholars did not notice this. That scholars never noticed that figures from Kings, for example, did not always match, Chronicles. For this example, that Origen, Jerome, Justin, did not "notice" that there was a gap in Acts. No I don't have a quote from them to "prove" it. But they weren't less observant than we are just because they did not live in "modern" times! Student7 15:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia is a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. So is the Jewish Encyclopedia. They are not excluded from wikipedia articles, in fact they should be cited more often, to help solve the credibility problem. 75.15.199.148 19:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Theophilos meaning

Hi.. why is theophilos rendered "beloved by god"? Surely it is just as well translated "lover of god", I don't see that the passive is implied. Zargulon 16:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed.Student7 16:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Passive and active is possible. According to the standard reference for Koine Greek, the Bauer lexicon, 2nd edition, 1958, page 358: (be)loved by God (so Pind., Hdt. +; Diod. S. 5,34,1; Dio Chrys. 16[33], 21; Dit., Or. 383, 42 [I BC]; PGM 13, 225; Ep. Arist. 287; Jos. Ant. 1,106; 14,22;455), also act.[ive] loving God (Isocr. 4,29; Philo, Praem. 43) ... 75.0.15.5 22:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Should this article be in Category:Biblical criticism?

User:75.15.207.29 added this article to Category:Biblical criticism. User:Student7 reverted the edit with the following edit summary "Sorry. I don't see how Acts falls into criticism. Of itself?" This edit summary suggests that Student7 may have misunderstood the meaning of the term Biblical criticism. I was going to reinstate the addition of the category when I started thinking "So... would this mean that every book of the Bible would be in the category also?" At that point, I decided to leave Student7's reversion in place and raise the question here.

Yes, it's true that there has been lots of Biblical criticism of the Book of Acts but that is true of just about every other book in the Bible. It seems superfluous to add any book of the Bible to Category:Biblical criticism. Presumably, readers can find the books of the Bible some other way than via this category.

--Richard 20:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. The category is not appropriate here, I believe. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Acts genre and female author

Two major sections were deleted, I've reverted, here's why.

The genre of Acts is a major subject of discussion. Many, many scholarly articles have been written on the subject. Contrary to what Jclsfx seems to think, however, fiction is not one of the genres under debate though. I think this section should be expanded a little at some point, since it's such a subject of discussion.

Female luke-- well, it's definitely not a majority view, but it is a prominent view. Luke has, for centuries, been known to have a treatment of women that's unique among NT authors. That this treatment is explained by the author being female is notable enough to merit a mention, but we could include more text to help readers understand it is not a majority view. The question mark in the section heading goes a long way toward that, but if necessary, we could do more.

As an aside-- Jclsfx twice mentioned the Helms book "Gospel Fictions". Contrary to its provocative title, Helms does not actually argue that the gospels are works of fiction--- he argues they are historical narratives where lacuna in the narrative have been interpolated using OT prophecy. --Alecmconroy 01:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Student7 has reverted. Jclsfx/Student7, How do you know that a female author of Luke-Acts is false? I myself am not an adherent to the theory, but I think it's a notable opinion among those scholars who reject Luke the physician as an author? It's much discussed-- a simple google search can find plenty of notable academic discussions of the subject? A Global Bible Commentary, muliple theses and plenty of others. (obviously, the most notable discussion are on my shelf, not on google). Why do you think this is a fiction? Is it because you accept the authorship of Luke the Physician as an article of faith, or simply because you, like me, find the argument unconvincing? I can understand disagreeing with the argument, but I can't understand claiming it's not a notable argument.

And what is the justification for deleting the genre section? Keep in mind, the main debate is betweeen "biography" and "history" and "historiography". The most controversial might best be describe as "historic novelization"-- but pure fiction is not even among the candidates. --Alecmconroy 03:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Before the first reversion, I had privately remarked to Jclsfx about the wisdom of deletion. We have trouble enough sorting fiction from fact in biblical without entertaining deliberate fiction. Examples: Homosexual readings of Jesus and John. Jeepers. Then there is the Copper Scroll about which no one really knows anything. The stuff there is mostly supposition! The viewers of "Histories Mysteries" keep coming in and trying to add nonsense from that program. It borders on satire as it is! We won't even discuss "the da Vinci Code"! In one minor example of nonsense, the article on Origen, contains a section with companies named "after" him, as if anyone would deliberately name a corporation doing business with the public after a fairly obscure and occasionally heretical 3rd century theologian!

There are several thousand doctoral candidates out there and they have to write a thesis about something. In the hard sciences, there is usually something new. But for the softer sciences like ancient history and theology, there is often nothing new, forcing candidates (and their advisors) to manufacture any permutation that might grab attention. This may gain them some space in a professional journal and the daily paper but not my respect! While we may be forced to recognize nonsense theories published in a refereed journal, we aren't required to publicize utter nonsense that didn't make that cut! As for the woman author, it would have been nice if the 1st century Jews had sent their women to school. Unfortunately, they were not aware of modern PC, and they didn't, concerning themselves mainly with keeping themselves alive (and the afterlife when they didn't). Okay, I suppose some Greek woman could have. I imagine someone might have noticed that Paul's traveling companion was not a man. Another one of the "suppressed" epistles! How did Dan Brown miss that one? Student7 13:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. those are some sweeping indictments there. Let me try to parse it.

I can understand why you doubt the female author of Luke-Acts hypothesis. There are numerous good reasons to be skeptical of it-- not the least of which is the general illiteracy of women in the first and second century Hellenistic Jewish community. The self-referential male pronouns are another such reason.

I see you making arguments about why we might disagree with the hypothesis, However, I don't see you making an arguments that the discussion lacks notability. I also still don't see you debating the notability of the Genre section is. I certainly do understand why you, as a matter of faith or logic or both, might find certain genres or certain authors more convincing than others-- but I don't see how you can claim neither topic is notable enough to merit discussion. That you think these sections are "pure fiction" is of course your prerogative, but of course, it's also quite irrelevant.

As for sources-- I think your indictments of the field of Biblical Scholarship is a bit harsh and unrealistic. As anyone who has had to defend a doctoral thesis or publish a scholarly book or publish in a journal can tell you-- there are substantial amounts of peer review at all levels. You seem to have a conception of the Biblical Scholarship field where people can just instantly publish any idea, however poorly supported it is. The headaches of anyone who's ever publish testify to the opposite, I'm afraid.

Doctoral theses and books by biblical scholars do meet our criteria for reliable sources. But if only referred journals merit discussion, you needn't worry, the female author hypothesis has been discussed extensively there also. See "Women in Luke-Acts: A Redactional View" by Mary Rose D'Angelo for just one example off the top of my head.

So, you've made your case for why the sections you deleted do not have your respect-- but of course, your respect isn't the standard by which we decide inclusions or deletions. Do you have any other argument as to why these sections shouldn't be deleted? --Alecmconroy 05:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

(aside) You say "I imagine someone might have noticed that Paul's traveling companion was not a man." Actually, Paul had many associates who were female. Thecla for example. This is just an aside, since by and large, those who argue for a female author of Luke-Act also reject the notion that the author personally knew Paul. --Alecmconroy 05:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to re-add the two sections for now. Please feel free to continue discussing why these sections are not notable enough to merit discussion. So far, the only argument I see is that you personally disagree with the female author hypothesis, but that of course doesn't make it a non-notable hypothesis. --Alecmconroy 13:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sherwin-White and historicity of the Acts

There's an interesting blog entry I've found about apologists' misquoatation of Sherwin-White http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/2007/11/apologists-abuse-of-sherwin-white.html I know that's blog, but it sheds light on the way Christian apologists and apologetes abused the famous quote by Sherwin-White about historicity of the Acts or Gospels. the blogger argues that Sherwin-White discussed only a limited part of Acts/Gospels, related to the Roman and Jewish law and customs. He made NO statements about the resurrection and other religious beliefs. I think that the skepticism section, including the meaning of the quote by Sherwin-White, should be expanded with sources. Critto (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

General comments (April 2009)

I take it from reading the discussion section that this article has improved a lot over time. There are still several things about it that I don't like.

• First, it's too long. Some sections (date, authorship, historicity) merit a separate article. This article should contain only things we can reliably present on the book of Acts: what it is and what is in it.
• Second, the article should be candid about what is known and what is argued or mere conjecture. We don't know when exactly the book was composed, we don't know who the author was, and we certainly don't know much about the historicity of the events. Since these are all contentious topics, they should be dealt with in separate articles, and with care.
• Third, the article generally covers up our basic ignorance on key points by reference to what some quantity of scholars believe. That is alright--if the representation of the status quaestionis is fair--but it should not be used as a substitute for stating the plain truth, namely that we don't know. A related problem is that statements about what some quantity of scholars believe easily take on POV status (for example, it is strange to see an opposition between conservative scholars and skeptics).
• Finally, I think the statement in the opening paragraph on how the name Acts might also be interpreted should not be in this section: it jumps too deep into the matter, and the opening statement should just simply say what Acts is.

A note on historicity: the arguments listed (either way) strike me as irrelevant. The question is whether the author relates events from first-hand knowledge, or uses sources. If he uses sources, then the question of historicity shifts to that of the sources. If a text is composed of material mainly deriving from other sources, it cannot be considered a historical source itself. That some historical details in the text are accurate is beside the point.

A note on dating: it is alright that the range of datings is given, but the first statement should be about the terminus ante quem (Irenaeus mentioning the book), not about the various conjectures. Zwart (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

POV bias about Pauline authorship of Epistles

This article states that "Only about half of the epistles attributed to Paul are believed to be authentic." Considering that this is a strong statement against the religious convictions of many Christians, and that no evidence for it is pointed out in the article, shouldn't we leave this opinion statement out?Mitchell Powell (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

And this strangely dogmatic bias appears in a similar statement in the "Manuscripts" section: "It is believed that the material in the Western text which isn't in the Alexandrian text reflects later theological developments within Christianity." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchell Powell (talk • contribs) 23:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You do have a point. Tell me if my edit is a step in the right direction - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As a Christian and Biblical Scholar the evidence we now have indicates that Paul wrote about half of his letters. There is evidence that Paul wrote the others with the help of scribes. One of these scribes was Tertius who wrote Roman for Paul.(Roman16:22) Paul only wrote the last 4 verses of 1 Corinthians. The rest was done by his scribe. See also Gal 6:11 The input of Paul's scribes, followers, interpreters and students did not upset the Christians of the Early Church, for they knew the works were of God, inspiring mere mortals by the Holy Spirit. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC) PS Sorry for the Sermon!

Good catch, Michell! That original sentence was definitely too strong.

I've taken a stab at it by avoiding the whole can of worms. The problematic sentence occurred in the sourcing section in a paragraph that seeks to determine whether the author of Acts had access to the Pauline Epistles when composing. But when you stop and think about it, we don't even need to get into the authenticity of the Pauline Epistles here. Instead, we can simply state that since any discrepancies between Pauline epistles and Acts support the conclusion that the author of Acts didn't use the epistles as a source. This way, we tidily leave the large questions to "Authorship of the Pauline epistles". --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, a great constructive edit. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks to both of you. Mitchell Powell (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Everything is shared (4:32-37)

In the section Content the reference to acts 4:32-37 points wrong: it points to Discourse on ostentation#Materialism, which is a very narrow abstraction of the topic in those bible verses. Equally narrow would be to link it to Anabaptists or Christian communism which are on the other end of the spectrum. These specific verses have influenced the course of the Christianities (myriads (!!!) of them) and Western society much much more than many of the other better treated ones, such as the peasant wars after the protestant reformation, the monasterial sharing of property, priests and members of lots of sects deliberately living in poverty, some certain aspects of Calvinist moral, such as the abstension from living in luxury, while yet collecting property, by Max Weber considered being the base morals for capitalism ... It actually requires its own article. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 10:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody says anything? Can I conclude that everybody agree? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Amen. SAE (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)