Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] Arguments for historical accuracy that are all smoke and mirrors, written by Bart Ehrman, read by Ken Toutch.
[00:00:11] In my next post, I will be staking out the negative side on the debate I had with myself in class arguing against the resolution resolved. The book of acts is historically reliable. I have already made the affirmation case in the negative. I will argue that the book is not reliable, that first speech was a set speech prepared without reference to anything the affirmative side said. I will then give a negative refutation of the affirmative side's first speech, and I will end with an affirmative rebuttal of the negative's two speeches.
[00:00:45] Before I do all that, however, I need to take a time out and explain one negative counterargument that would take too much space if it were simply part of a longer post laying out the negative position.
[00:00:57] The affirmative side in the debate argued that, based on archaeological evidence, Luke can be shown to have presented accurately the laws, custom, and geography mentioned or alluded to in the book of Acts. There really was an Ariopagus where philosophers gathered. As mentioned in Acts 17, Thessalonica really did have local rulers called politarchs. Listra really did have a temple of Zeus located outside its city walls. That all sounds very impressive in the abstract that Luke's account can be, and has been verified by significant archaeological discoveries. The negative side of the debate, however, maintains that this information is completely irrelevant to the issue.
[00:01:42] The reason is this. We would expect that an author from the first century Roman Empire, one who was well traveled, especially to be familiar with the first century Roman Empire. That doesn't mean that the stories he sets within the first century Roman Empire are true. He might well know about the politarks in Thessalonica or the temple of Zeus in Lystra. But that has no bearing on the question of whether the stories that he sets in those contexts really happened or not. In other words, the affirmative side is arguing a true but irrelevant point. When I try to explain this to my students, I give them an illustration. Suppose someone were to publish a newspaper article next week about something that happened yesterday on March 28, 2016. To me, Bart Ehrman. The article indicates that I left my office building on UNC Chapel Hill campus, Carolina hall, walked over to the Haynes Art center in order to give a lecture for my introduction to New Testament class. But before I reached the building, there was a deafening explosion. Terrorists had set a bomb and it leveled the building, killing dozens of innocent people.
[00:02:53] 2000 years from now, someone uncovers the article and sets out to see if this story is true. Based on other literary references, they discover where a city called Chapel Hill used to be in a state that was named North Carolina. They undertake an archaeological dig, and lo and behold, the article is right. There really was a chapel hill in a place called North Carolina. Moreover, they find all sorts of buildings that must have been classrooms and offices. There really was a university there. They happen to unearth the registrar's office, and they find substantial, important documentary evidence. There really was a Bart Ehrman who taught there at the time at UNC Chapel Hill. He really did have an office in Carolina. Hall. And, wonder of wonders, he really did teach a class on the New Testament on Wednesdays in Haynes Art Center. Archaeology has now shown that the story discovered in the newspaper is true. It has been confirmed, right?
[00:03:52] Wrong. What has been confirmed is that the person who wrote the article knew about Chapel Hill, about Bart Ehrman, about where his office was, and about where his course was held. The story itself is about a building being blown up, and that didn't happen. The story itself is completely wrong, except in the locations of cities, the names of buildings, and the names of the main character.
[00:04:17] What the story said happened is nowhere near being true.
[00:04:21] When archaeology shows that there really was an Ariopagus and Thessalonian politarchs and a temple to Zeus, it shows that the author of the Book of Acts was a well traveled person from the first century Roman Empire. That has no bearing on the question of whether the accounts that he places in Athens, Thessalonica, or Lystra actually happened. Of course, if he got all sorts of information wrong about those places, it would show that he didn't really know about them. Think Dan Brown and his knowledge of Paris. But if he did know about them, it simply shows that he had once been there or heard reliable information about the places. When one wants to know if the book of Acts is historically reliable, one is, of course, interested in knowing if the author has a good knowledge of the laws, customs, and geography of his own time, that's worth knowing. But even more than that, one wants to know whether the episodes that he describes really took place either at all or in the ways that he describes. For that kind of information, archaeology will rarely help us. The affirmative side, therefore, has not advanced an argument that demonstrates its case, that the book of acts is historically reliable. The argument, instead, is smoke and mirrors. I point this out because it's an argument that gets used a lot.
