Your source, which you are embarrassed to note, is ridiculous. The only difference between Acts and the Epistles is Acts wasn't written by Paul, but by a colleague of Paul on some of his journeys. Numerous details mentioned in the NT have been verified archeologically and historically. Just consider Acts:
... the text of Acts has been variously assumed to have erred, but has proven time and time again that it was not in err, but in fact, possessed correct and extremely precise data. Thus, if a writer such as Luke proves himself correct over and over again (as we shall see below), and conversely his critics prove wrong over and over again, we are justified in suspending judgment (assuming the writer is in error), and giving the benefit of the doubt to the normally trustworthy writer on moot points (see Bruce, AAGT, p. 17; Ramsay, BRD, p. 80).Ironically, as we shall presently see, there has been so much information gathered from archaeology to confirm the accuracy and historicity of Acts, that the radical higher critic are the ones who ought to be doubted, not the text!
...........
the author of Acts tells us in 16:12-39 many specific details about this Roman colony, Philippi. For example, he informs us about the market place where the magistrates convened court, that there is a city gate by a river etc., (see Thompson, BA, p. 395). All these facts have been verified by archaeological, historical, and topographical studies (Thompson, LH, p. 14-15).
Third, Athens is mentioned in Acts 17:16-34. Our writer brings to our attention numerous details about the city in his narrative (see Ramsay, SPT, pp. 237-253). Paul was provoked by an inscription he read that was dedicated "to the unknown god." He debated moral questions with some Athenian philosophers in the market place before the Areopagus council. It has been established that metaphysical and ethical discussions were routinely carried on at the Athenian market place. The ancient court and most venerable of Athenian institutions, the Areopagus, held control over lectures. This important council named after the hill, Areopagus, meet in the days of Paul in the Royal Colonnade in the market place just as Luke states (see Ramsay, BRD, pp. 102-105; SPT, pp. 243-245; and Thompson, LH, pp. 16-18,).
Another particularly interesting tidbit is the disdainful Athenian retort in 17:18 by the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers of Paul being a "babbler" (spermologos). This is an authentic touch of characteristic Athenian social slang (Ramsay, SPT, pp. 241-243).
Athens was indeed a "very religious" city. We know that Athens had a large number of temples, and religious statues and images. Josephus and other early writers were similarly impressed, as Paul was, regarding the Athenian preoccupation with the gods (Bruce, CBA, p. 355). Still yet, we know that there were numerous inscriptions on alters in Athens dedicated to "to an unknown god." Pausanias, of the second century A.D., and Diogenes Laertes, from the third century, both mentioned such alters to these anonymous deities (ibid., p. 355; Yamauchi, p.116). Thompson informs us that "Philostratus in the early third century spoke of Athens `where even unknown divinities have alters erected to them'" (Thompson, BA, p. 399). The writer of Acts again accurately records cultural facts of a society.
...............
These findings (especially when conjoined with further findings numerated below), reveal Luke's apparent eyewitness descriptions (either his own or that of Paul's) of the events and places cited above by his vivid portrayals of life and the social matrix of the communities Paul visited.
Acts not only is teaming with minute details of the "stuff of civilizations," but contains comments on external environmental factors which effected these communities as well. For instance, Luke takes note of a severe famine, during the rule of emperor Claudius, that plagued large parts of the Roman empire (Acts 11:27-30). The accuracy of this account was challenged by various scholars, who fancied this as an "imaginative" invention of Luke, because they were not aware of independent confirmation of it.
However, historical evidence, independent of Acts, has supplemented our previously famished diet of knowledge on this topic (see Ramsay, SPT, pp. 48-52, 68-69; and Bruce, CBA, p. 243, for further information on the time and extent of the famine[s]). Suetonius, the Roman historian who lived at the end of the first century and into the second, referred to austere conditions at the time of Claudius caused by "...a scarcity of provisions, occasioned by bad crops for several years" (as cited in Thompson, LH, p. 7). Dion Cassius, a statesman and writer, along with Tacitus, a Roman historian (55-120 A.D.), both refer to two famines in Rome in the first century (ibid. p. 7).
.............
Based upon his through studies of the legal accounts recorded in Acts, the renowned Roman and legal historian Sherwin-White pronounces his verdict on the case before us in the following statement: "The accounts of these trials in Acts is so technically correct that Roman historians since Mommsen have often judged them as the best illustration of Roman provincial jurisdiction in this particular period" (TC, p. 101). And in circumscribing our topic of the historicity of Acts from its presentation of judicial concerns he declared: "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming....any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken if for granted" (RSRL, p. 189). (For further study on this subject consult Ramsay, BRD, pp. 90-105; Robertson, LH, pp. 190-205; and Sherwin-White's TC, and RSRL.)
..........
Acts 13:7 mentions one Sergius Paulus, the proconsul (or the Greek anthupatos, that translates the Latin proconsul) of the island of Cyprus, who was ruling from the seat of the provincial government in Paphos at the time of Paul's visit. This passage has been greatly contested since is was believed that this area during the time of Paul was not governed by a proconsul, but by an imperial legate. Thus, Acts was thought to be in error. What are the facts?
Cyprus, to which Paphos belonged, became a Senatorial province in 22 B.C. Therefore, from that date onward it was, at least throughout the time of the apostle Paul, governed by a proconsul. Thus, up until 22 B.C. it had been an Imperial province, and was ruled by a imperial legate (Robertson, LH, p. 182). But, at the time of Paul's visit it was a senatorial province and was governed by a proconsul. In fact, an inscription has been found at Soloi (in Cyprus) that states "in the Proconsulship of Paulus" (see Ramsay SPT, pp. 74-76). It is not my contention that this is necessarily the very Sergius Paulus of Acts 13, but merely that archaeological findings have confirmed that Luke used the correct title for the governor in Cyprus during the time of Paul's missionary activity in this area (Thompson, LH, p.8). (For further study on this issue see Ramsay, BRD, pp. 150-172; and Thompson, BA, pp. 390-392.)
Recounting Paul's arrest and imprisonment at Philippi in Acts 16:20-39, Luke calls the legal officials magistrates (Greek strategois or the Latin praetors), and their officers, sergeants (the Greek is rabdouchoi, and the Latin is lictors). Since, as noted earlier, Philippi was a Roman colony, its magistrates were called "duumvirs," not praetors, which was a more dignified title. Again it seemed that Luke was incorrect. However, we know, of at least one parallel case from the Roman colony of Capua, where the "duumvirs" were, or at least preferred to be, called praetors (Thompson, BA, p. 396; LH, p.14). Cicero writes: "Although they are called duumvirs in the other colonies, these men wish to be called praetors." Therefore, it is possible, indeed highly probable given Luke's usual precise and seemly firsthand information, that the Philippian magistrates did not use their official titles, but opted for the more respectable one (see Bruce, CBA, p. 335; Unger, ANT, p. 223).
Moving along we arrive at Thessalonica, and Paul's run in with its authorities (Acts 17:6-9). Here, Luke calls the city officials politarchoi. Since this title is not found in any extant classical literature, it should come as no surprise that is was assumed that Acts had erred again. However, Act is correct (Sherwin-White, RSRL, p. 96-97). Inscriptions have been discovered, from Macedonian towns, including Thessaloncia, that verify Luke's usage of this unusual term (see Bruce, ACNT, p.325). For example, the Roman road entered the city by a Roman arch called the Vardar Gate. On this arch is an inscription: "In the time of Politarchs...." The inscription is dated from 30 B.C. to 143 A.D. (Thompson, LH, p. 15).
From Acts 18:12 we read of Gallio, proconsul of Achaia, who Paul appeared before on spurious charges. It was believed that Luke was mistaken in referring to Gallio as a proconsul, since it was believed that Achaia at this time was governed by a procurator, not a proconsul. But, the literary and archaeological evidence supports Acts, not its critics. Achaia was governed by a proconsul from the time of 27 B.C. to 15 A.D. However, in 15 A.D. it reverted back to being under the control of the emperor; thus, it was governed by a procurator during this time period. Nonetheless, from 44 A.D. onwards it came again under the control of the Roman Senate, and thus was governed by a proconsul (see Ramsay, SPT, p. 258; Robertson, LH, p. 182; and Thompson, LH, p. 19).
Furthermore, the Gallio in question was the brother of the great Stoic philosopher, Seneca, who mentions that his brother "Gallio caught fever in Achaia" (Bruce, CBA, pp. 373-374; Thompson, LH, p. 19). Additionally, a Delphian inscription states a proclamation of emperor Claudius that Gallio became proconsul of Achaia in July, 51 A.D. (Bruce, ACNT, p. 324; CBA, p. 374; Thompson, BA, p. 401; LH, p. 19). This is remarkable confirmation of Luke's accuracy in Acts 18:12., of not only stating the proper title of the governor, but the name of the actual person himself.
Next we want to examine Acts 19:31, 35, and 38. In these versus Luke mentions the "chief men," or "officials (asiarchon), who were friends of Paul, the "town clerk" (grammateus), and Ephesus being the "temple keeper" or "guardian" (neokoros) of the temple of Artemis. All of these titles and offices have been verified by archaeological finds, namely, inscriptions, as having been used in Ephesus in the time frame that Paul journeyed to the city (see Bruce, CBA, pp.400-402; NTDR, pp. 83-84; Sherwin-White, RSRL, pp. 85-91; Thompson, BA, p. 408; LH, p. 24-25).
.............
Lastly, we cite Acts 28:7. Luke calls the head official on the island of Malta, the "chief" or "first" (protos) official. This title is vouched for by both Greek and Latin inscriptions as the proper title for the Roman governor of Malta during this time period (Bruce, CBA, p. 523; Thompson, LH, p. 25).
Perhaps Luke's accuracy in correctly naming religious and governmental officials can be better appreciated by citing two observations of Bruce:
The student of Roman history is aware of the bewildering variety in the titles held by these men, and he cannot fail to be struck by the confident accuracy with which Luke uses them. (ACNT, p. 325)
A writer who thus relates his story to the wider context of world history is courting trouble if he is not careful; he affords his critical readers so many opportunities for testing his accuracy. Luke takes this risk, and stands the test admirably. One of the most remarkable tokens of his accuracy is his sure familiarity with the proper titles of all the notable persons who are mentioned in his pages. This was by no means such an easy feat in his days as it is in ours, when it is so simple to consult convenient books of reference. The accuracy of Luke's use of the various titles in the Roman Empire has been compared to the ease and confident way in which an Oxford man in ordinary conversation will refer to the Heads of Oxford colleges by their proper titles--the Provost of Oriel, the Master of Balloil, the Rector of Exeter, the President of Magdalen, and so on...But Luke had a further difficulty in that the titles sometimes did not remain the same for any great length of time; a province might pass from senatorial government to administration by a district representative of the emperor, and would then be governed no longer by a proconsul but by an imperial legate... (NTDR, p. 82).
.............
inplainsite.org
|
