This
is from William Neil’s 1973 commentary on the Book of Acts, published by
Oliphants.
If
there is one major criticism that may be levelled against the recent exponents
of the theists that Luke was a theologian rather than a historian, is that they
pay too little attention to the established findings of a past generation of
scholars which point in the opposite direction. It is generally recognized that
Sir William Ramsay latterly pressed his advocacy of Luke’s reliability almost
to the point of claiming his infallibility, and came close to insisting that
archaeology proves the New Testament to be true; but, in his heyday, on the
basis of his own study of the inscriptions in Asia Minor, he did reach certain
conclusions about the Book of acts which are still relevant.
Ramsay was convinced that the writer of Acts
knew the world of Paul in the intimate way that could only have come from
first-hand knowledge; particularly is this evidence in his use official titles,
which, in the days of the Roman Empire as in our day, were a peculiarly tricky
problem. Yet, as he pointed out in pp. 96-7 of The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Truthworthiness of the New
Testament (1914), the officials whom Paul and his party encountered were
exactly those who should have been there at that time: proconsuls in senatorial
provinces, Asiarchs in Ephesus, strategoi in Philippi, politarchs in
Thessalonica. This sort of argument does not, of course, prove that Luke was
there, but it does suggest a writer who took the trouble to get his facts
right, and who might well have been on the spot himself.
Another
contribution from an older generation which is still worthy of respect is the
monograph by Jams Smith of Jordanhill on The
Voyage and Shipwreck of the St. Paul (1848). Smith made a study of ancient
ships and methods of navigation, and argued that Ac. 27 must have been written
by an eye-witness who was not a sailor. The view seem more likely that the
eye-witness was the author of Acts himself rather than that canvasses by
Conzelmann and others, that Luke found somewhere a good story of a voyage to
Rome including a shipwreck and inserted it into a few references to Paul.
It is surely not without
significance, as H. J. Cadbury pointed out in pp. 241-252 of The Making of Luke-Acts (1927), that the
writer of Acts is interested in the geographical details of Paul’s journey. He refers to Perga as being in Pamphylia,
Antioch as Pisidian, Lystra and Derbe as cities in Lycaonia. Philippi is the
leading city of part of Macedonia and a colony, Tarsus is in Cilicia, Myra in
Lycia. He speaks of a place called Fair Havens in Crete near the town of Lasea,
and of Phoenix, the Cretan harbor, looking north-east and south-east. He notes
the addresses of the people in his story and the places where the missionaries find
lodgings: at Philippi Paul stays with Lydia, in Thessalonica with Jason, in
Corinth with Aquila and Priscilla. Paul leaves their home and hoes to lodge
with Justus, whose house was next door to the synagogue. In Joppa, Peter stays
with a tanner by the name of Simon, whose house was by the sea….
In his recent Sarum lectures, Roman
Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, (1963) A. N. Sherwin-White has shed
new and interesting light on our problem from the angle of classical studies.
He shows that the author of Acts was well-versed in the intricacies of Roman
law as it was practiced in the provinces of the Empire in the middle of the first Century; in the
case of Paul’s trials before Felix, Festus and Gallio, the legal procedure is
accurately described. On the question of the status and privileges of Roman
citizens such as Paul, Sherwin-White maintains “Acts gets things right both at
the general level, in his overall attitude, and in specific aspects.” He
concludes that in Acts ‘the confirmation of historicity is
overwhelming…(and)…an attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear
absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted” (p. 173, 189).
So, we have four reasons for
supposing that the author of Acts of the Apostles was a careful recorder of
events, interested in facts. At the same time, in both of his books, Luke and
Acts, there are numerous miracles claimed. Let us consider two hypotheses:
1) NH, or
the naturalistic hypothesis. On NH, all the events that took place in the New
Testament have natural, not supernatural causes.
2) SH, or
the supernatural hypothesis. On SH, some of the events recorded in the New
Testament have supernatural, not natural, causes.
Now, given
NH, the existence of a meticulous, researching, event-recorder seems to me to
be improbable. Let’s contrast Luke here with a miracle reporter whose miracle
claims are often compared with those of Christianity, Apollonius of Tyana. This
account is from Richard Purtill’s Thinking About Religion:
The first thing to notice is the
fairy-tale atmosphere. There is a rather nice little vampire story, which
inspired a major poem by Keats, entitled Lamia. There are animal stories about,
for instance, snakes in India big enough to drag off and eat an elephant. The
sage wanders from country to country and wherever he goes he is likely to be
entertained by the king or emperor, who holds long conversations with him and sends
him on his way with camels and precious stones.
Interspersed with picturesque adventures there are occasional accounts of
miracles, often involving prophecy and mind reading. A ruffian threatens to cut
Apollonius’s head off and the sage laughs and shouts the name of a day three
days hence; on that day the ruffian is executed for treason. Here is a typical
passage about healing miracles;
Philostratus: There came a man about thirty who was an expert lion-hunter
but had been attacked by a lion and dislocated his hip, and so was lame in one
leg. But the Wise Man massaged his hip and this restored the man to an upright
walk. Someone else who had gone blind went away with his sight fully restored,
and another man with a paralysed arm left strong again. A woman too, who had
had seven miscarriages was cured through the prayers of her husband as follows.
The Wise Man told the husband, when his wife was in labor, to bring a live
rabbit under his cloak to the place where she was, walk around her and
immediately release the hare: for she would lose her womb as well as thee baby
if the hare was not immediately driven away (Bk. 3, Sec. 39).
RP again: Now the point is not that
Appollonius no serious rival to Christ; no one ever thought he was except a few
anti-Christian polemicists about the time of some of the early persecutions of
the Church. The point is this is what you get when imagination goes to work on
a historical figure in classical antiquity; you get miracle stories a little
like those in the Gospels, but also snakes big enough to eat elephants, kings
and emperors as supporting cast, travelers’ tales, ghosts and vampires. Once
the boundaries of fact are crossed we wander into fairyland. And very nice too.
But the Gospels are set firmly in the real Palestine of the first century, and
the little details are not picturesque inventions but the real details that
only an eyewitness or a skilled realistic novelist can give.
VR:
If I recall correctly, Philostratus also has Apollonius in Nineveh, even though
it had been destroyed seven centuries earlier.
Philostratus
seems like someone who has a lack of interest in facts. For his purposes, alternative
facts will do just as well as real one.
Now,
if NH is true, we should expect all accounts coming from the ancient world that
contain miracle reports to be more like those of Philostratus than those of
Luke. On SH, a chronicler like Luke is exactly what we should expect. Maybe we
can explain Luke’s meticulousness on NH, but we nevertheless it is far more
probable given SH than NH.
Now,
I am not arguing that Christianity is unavoidable given this evidence. This
evidence can be outweighed. But what seems preposterous to me upon reflection
is the idea that there is NO evidence for the Christian claims, unless, of
course, you have an argument that evidence for supernatural claims is impossible
in principle.
