The thread "Is there a such thing as atheism?" has become ponderously unwieldy and so I thought it best this new discussion receive its own thread.
My 1972 edition of Britannica speaks of two groups of early manuscripts of the Acts of the Apostles – the “Alexandrian” and the “Western.” The latter became widespread in both the east and the west beginning about the 2nd century and, according to the authors of the article,“seems to be a 2nd-century recension” – that is a revised edition – “to which other Western additions were made later.” They also call the Alexandrian a revision, but think it “nearer the archetype.” By this do they mean closer to the original? However, they say, “It is not possible that Luke himself was the author of both texts...” and imply in the article, if I read their meaning correctly, that the Western manuscripts serve as the chief source for the biblical rendition of Acts. If you are confused by this, I admit, so am I.
As for historical reliability they say it is not possible to check the accuracy of the narrative of first 12 chapters of Acts against any other historical sources (but is this still true?). However, in regard the apostle Paul “there are also two remarkable discrepancies: the account given in Paul’s epistle to the Galatians of his visits to Jerusalem as compared with the narrative of Acts, and the nature of his mission as it appears in his letter generally and in Acts.”
The authors of the 1972 article are James Vernon Bartlet, D.D. (d. 1940), professor of Church History at Oxford; and Charles S. C. Williams (d. 1962), lecturer at Oxford University.
The 2010 on-line edition of Britannica states “A key contested issue is the historicity of Luke's depiction of Paul. According to the majority viewpoint, Acts describes Paul differently from how he describes himself, both factually and theologically.” Further on it states “That an actual companion of Paul writing about his mission journeys could be in so much disagreement with Paul (whose theology is evidenced in his letters) about fundamental issues such as the Law, his apostleship, and his relationship to the Jerusalem church is hardly conceivable.”
biblical literature :: The Acts of the Apostles -- Encyclopedia Britannica
A scholarly essay by Peter M. Head asks in conclusion, “Notwithstanding the general conclusion that the Western text is secondary, might it occasionally record authentic historical information? Although this possibility cannot be excluded, my own impression is that this is unlikely....” “The argument of this essay, however, points to the likelihood that the Alexandrian text provides the closer approximation to the original text of the author, and should therefore be the primary object of the exegete’s attentions.”
See: The Text of Acts
I suspect that if you rely on conservative evangelical Christian apologetic sources you will come away with one interpretation of the historicity of Acts, but if you follow the widespread examination coming from liberal institutions you will hear a different conclusion.
My 1972 edition of Britannica speaks of two groups of early manuscripts of the Acts of the Apostles – the “Alexandrian” and the “Western.” The latter became widespread in both the east and the west beginning about the 2nd century and, according to the authors of the article,“seems to be a 2nd-century recension” – that is a revised edition – “to which other Western additions were made later.” They also call the Alexandrian a revision, but think it “nearer the archetype.” By this do they mean closer to the original? However, they say, “It is not possible that Luke himself was the author of both texts...” and imply in the article, if I read their meaning correctly, that the Western manuscripts serve as the chief source for the biblical rendition of Acts. If you are confused by this, I admit, so am I.
As for historical reliability they say it is not possible to check the accuracy of the narrative of first 12 chapters of Acts against any other historical sources (but is this still true?). However, in regard the apostle Paul “there are also two remarkable discrepancies: the account given in Paul’s epistle to the Galatians of his visits to Jerusalem as compared with the narrative of Acts, and the nature of his mission as it appears in his letter generally and in Acts.”
The authors of the 1972 article are James Vernon Bartlet, D.D. (d. 1940), professor of Church History at Oxford; and Charles S. C. Williams (d. 1962), lecturer at Oxford University.
The 2010 on-line edition of Britannica states “A key contested issue is the historicity of Luke's depiction of Paul. According to the majority viewpoint, Acts describes Paul differently from how he describes himself, both factually and theologically.” Further on it states “That an actual companion of Paul writing about his mission journeys could be in so much disagreement with Paul (whose theology is evidenced in his letters) about fundamental issues such as the Law, his apostleship, and his relationship to the Jerusalem church is hardly conceivable.”
biblical literature :: The Acts of the Apostles -- Encyclopedia Britannica
A scholarly essay by Peter M. Head asks in conclusion, “Notwithstanding the general conclusion that the Western text is secondary, might it occasionally record authentic historical information? Although this possibility cannot be excluded, my own impression is that this is unlikely....” “The argument of this essay, however, points to the likelihood that the Alexandrian text provides the closer approximation to the original text of the author, and should therefore be the primary object of the exegete’s attentions.”
See: The Text of Acts
I suspect that if you rely on conservative evangelical Christian apologetic sources you will come away with one interpretation of the historicity of Acts, but if you follow the widespread examination coming from liberal institutions you will hear a different conclusion.
Last edited:
.