Author tells us that he wants to engage in a historical investigation of Jesus’s life. Evidence he does this in Luke.Evidence from book of acts that this is what he has doneSame author wrote Luke and ActsIndicates that he is basing his accounts on what eye witnesses have saidHis one goal is to write an accurate account of the things that have transpiredBook is mostly about spread of Christianity through apostle Paul. This author not only talked to eye witnesses, he himself was a traveling companion of Paul. He was there to see these things take place.II. The Author As An EyewitnessThe “we” Passages (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-16; 21:1-18;17:1-28:16)This is how we know the author was an eyewitness. Starts walking about what we were doing: we went there, we did that. He is including himself in the narrative. At these points in narrative, he was with Paul **very strong evidencePresumed Date and AuthenticityThis tell us that this is written by a contemporary of Paul. Not an account written 100 years later. This is authentic account-first hand eyewitness account on what Paul said and didIII. The Authors’ Basic ReliabilityHis knowledge of Geography, Law and Local CustomsLystra (chapter 14: Sacrifice on altar outside of the city)Paul goes to this town in Asia minor and with Barnabus and he heels a man there. The people are amazed at what he has done and come to think that they are Gods who have descended to earth. Told that priest of Zeus took an ox and lead ox outside of city to alter to sacrifice it to Paul that was assumed to be one of the Gods. For years Liberal scholars mocked this passage. This was until archeologists dug up lystraoutside of gate there was an alter outside of gate to Zeus **archeology can establish truthfulness of this accountAthens (Chapter 17: the Aeropagus and its Philosopher’s)Told that Paul founds an author to an unknown god-alter set up by religious Pagan that had alters to various gods but wanted to have there bases covered. Finds alter and preaches to them about the real god. Infront of a group of philosiphors at Mars Hill. We know from literary references that philosophers did gather together on Ariopagis *verified from literary discoveriesThessalonica (the politarchs; 17:6)Paul goes into city and he causes disturbance in local synagogue. There was an uprising and group of leaders called paulitarchs who persecuted Paul for making this ruckus in synagogue. What is a pulitarch? When they made archeological discoveries-found brikes that were DEDICATED to pollitarchsHis confluence with a Primary sourceActs 9 and Gal 1-2 (road to Damascus; Conversion)Acts chapter 9 talk about how Paul started out as Jewish persecutor of the Christians. Given authorization to persecute Christians in Syria. On the way, he had a vision- Christ appeared to him and realized Jesus had been raised from the dead and was still aliveconverted to become a apostle. Can read Pauls own account in Gal 1-2 (stories are similar)Acts 17 1 Thess 3Sermon that Paul preaches in Athens. Refers to same sequence of events in Paul than in Acts 17 ( both mention TimothyII. Negative Rebuttal of First AffirmativeThe We passagesMore commonly though that:Travel ItineraryUsing a source of some kind of travel log that somebody else had. Problem is there there doesn’t seem to be any different writing style between we passages and other passagesFirst-person narratives to authenticate witnessPrecisely so you think he was a traveling companionBeing an eyewitness does not guarantee accuracyMost scholars don’t think that “we” indicates they were together. The we shows up out of no where and disappears out of know where. Whats going on with these we passages?Author’s Knowledge of geography and customsThis shows that he lived in the Roman world in the first century. Doesn’t show that the narrative he told was accurateIt does not show that he has accurate knowledge of these specific eventsConfluence with Sources: in fact he is at odds with Paul wherever they can be comparedEven though there might be a broad confluence, when looking at details they are always at oddsBeing historically accurate means giving historically reliable information ***specifics matterIII. First Negative: The book of Acts is not Historically reliableI. What it Means to be Historically ReliableWe mean that a text tells us what actually happened; can trust text to know what happened historically. Unfortunately, cannot use book of acts to know what happened historically because it had to many historically inaccuraciesIts possible to know about local geography, law and customs but still can give an INNACURATE storyII. Internal InconsistenciesThe ascension of Jesus (Luke 24; Acts 1)Jesus ascends on the day of the resurrection (Luke 24); Jesus ascends 40 days later (Acts 1)Jesus acends from Bethany (Luke 24); Jesus ascends from the Mount of Olives (Acts 1)The conversion of Paul (Acts 9, 22, 26)Paul’s companions heard the voice but saw no one (9:7); Paul’s companions saw the light but did not here the voice (22:9)Pauls companions left standing while he was knocked to the ground (9:7); Pauls companions knocked to the ground (26:12)Paul is told to go to Damascus to be instructed by Ananios (9:6, 10); Paul is not told to go to Damascus but is instructed directly by Jesus (26:16-18)III. External InconsistenciesDetails in Paul’s ItinerarySome small issues: Was timothy with paul in Athens (1 Thess 3:1) or not (Acts 17:15)?Some big issues: After Paul’s conversion: did he avoid going to see the apostles in Jerusalem (Gal 1:15-17) or is that the first thing he did (Acts 9:26)Other views of Paul’s Theology (Acts 17:22-31; Rom 1:18-32)Were pagans completely ignorant about gods (Acts 17) or fully knowledgeable about him (Rom 1)Does god overlook and forgive past idolatry (Acts 17) or condemm and punish it (Rom 1)How can it be both ways?**affirmative side didn’t look at any of the details; contradict eachother almost every time they over lapIV. Second Affirmative RebuttalThe author Did follow ancient historiographical methods, and cant be faulted for thatHe is a first century historian, the author is highly reliable. Interviewed eyewitnesses, did his hw, and presents account that is essentially reliable. Holding him to 21st century historiographical standards is not rightDifferences are minor; agreements are majorCant expect him to have every detail of Paul’s itinerary correctPaul too may have gotten some details wrongActs 17 and