Christ's Ventriloquist is just an Orthodox clap trap book that merely regurgitates the same thing spouted in Churches any Sunday. The idea of any "historic research" on this new book on Paul is a total crock. This book Christ's Ventriloquist shows no signs of ANY historic information not included in the orthodox scripture. Period. The historic Truth in my oppinion is much more radical. There is NO historic evidence the Christian church as we know it even existed in the first century. There is no historic evidence of the existance of any Gospel till far into the second century. Here are some historic problems with Acts others found. In all of the areas Acts is "correct" one will note the UTTER ABSENCE of any "presence of the Christian Church in ANY of the historical references deemed as "Accurate". This is key. Unfortunately many scripture chapter and verse numbers posed technical problems and had to be deleted.
Acts 5:33-39: Theudas[edit]
Main article: Theudas § The Theudas problem
gives an account of speech by the 1st century Pharisee Gamaliel, in which he refers to two first century movements. One of these was led by Theudas.[27] Afterwards another was led by Judas the Galilean.[28] Josephus placed Judas at the Census of Quirinius of the year 6 and Theudas under the procurator Fadus[29] in 44-46. Assuming Acts refers to the same Theudas as Josephus, two problems emerge. First, the order of Judas and Theudas is reversed in Acts 5. Second, Theudas's movement comes after the time when Gamaliel is speaking. However, it is possible that Theudas in Josephus is not the same one as in Acts, or that it is Josephus who has his dates confused.[30] The early Christian writer Origen referred to a Theudas active before the birth of Jesus,[31] although it is possible that this simply draws on the account in Acts.
Acts 2:41 and 4:4 - Peter's addresses[edit]
speaks of Peter addressing an audience, resulting in the number of Christian converts rising by 5,000 people. A Professor of the New Testament Robert M. Grant says "Luke evidently regarded himself as a historian, but many questions can be raised in regard to the reliability of his history […] His ‘statistics’ are impossible; Peter could not have addressed three thousand hearers [e.g. in without a microphone, and since the population of Jerusalem was about 25-30,000, Christians cannot have numbered five thousand [e.g. Acts 4:4]."[32]
Grant's estimate of the population of Jerusalem relied on an influential study by Jeremias in 1943.[33][34] However, Grant does not mention that Jeremias calculated a far higher population figure for festival seasons such as passover, at which he calculated Jerusalem would contain up to 125,000 pilgrims.[35] Furthermore, the lower estimate of Jeremias is significantly lower than the lowest of the moderate to high estimates made by Wilkinson in 1974 (70,398 under Herod the Great),[36]Broshi in 1976 (60,000),[37] Maier in 1976 (50,000, with three times that many during festival seasons),[38] and Levine in 2002 (60,000-70,000).[39] Accordingly, Cousland notes that "recent estimates of the population of Jerusalem suggest something in the neighbourhood of a hundred thousand".[40]
Estimates for the number of Christians in the Roman empire by the end of the 1st century range widely from 7,500,[41] to more than 50,000.[42][43]
Acts 6:9: The province of Cilicia[edit]
The New International Version translation of mentions the Province of Cilicia during a scene allegedly taking place in mid-30s AD. The Roman province by that name had been on hiatus from 27 BC and was re-established by Emperor Vespasian only in 72 AD.[44] All other translations only mention the name of Cilicia, without referring to it as a province.
Acts 21:38: The sicarii and the Egyptian[edit]
In a Roman asks Paul if he was 'the Egyptian' who led a band of 'sicarii' (literally: 'dagger-men') into the desert. In both The Jewish Wars[45] and Antiquities of the Jews,[46] Josephus talks about Jewish nationalist rebels called sicarii directly prior to talking about The Egyptian leading some followers to the Mount of Olives. Richard Pervo believes that this demonstrates that Luke used Josephus as a source and mistakenly thought that the sicarii were followers of The Egyptian.[47][48]
Acts 10:1: Roman troops in Caesarea[edit]
speaks of a Roman Centurion called Cornelius belonging to the "Italian regiment" and stationed in Caesarea. Robert Grant claims that during the reign of Herod Agrippa, 41-44, no Roman troops were stationed in his territory.[49]Wedderburn likewise finds the narrative "historically suspect",[50] and in view of the lack of inscriptional and literary evidence corroborating Acts, historian de Blois suggests that the unit either did not exist or was a later unit which the author of Acts projected to an earlier time.[51]
Noting that the 'Italian regiment' is generally identified as cohors II Italica civium Romanorum, a unit whose presence inJudea is attested no earlier than 69 CE,[52] historian E Mary Smallwood observes that the events described from Acts 9:32 to chapter 11 may not be in chronological order with the rest of the chapter but actually take place after Agrippa's death in chapter 12,
Acts 15: The Council of Jerusalem[edit]
Main article: Council of Jerusalem § Historicity
The description of the 'Apostolic Council' in , generally considered the same event described in 58]is considered by some scholars to be contradictory to the Galatians account.[59] The historicity of Luke's account has been challenged,[60][61][62] and was rejected completely by some scholars in the mid to late 20th century.[63]65]
Acts 24: Paul's trial[edit]
See also: Paul of Tarsus § Arrest and death
Paul's trial in has been described as 'incoherently presented'.[66][page needed]
Acts 15:16-18: James' speech[edit]
In , James, the leader of the Christian Jews in Jerusalem, gives a speech where he quotes scriptures from the Greek Septuagint . Some believe this is incongruous with the portrait of James as a Jewish leader who would presumably speak Aramaic, not Greek. For instance, Richard I. Pervo notes: "The scriptural citation strongly differs from the MT [= Masoretic Text, the transmitted Hebrew Bible], which has nothing to do with the inclusion of gentiles. This is the vital element in the citation and rules out the possibility that the historical James (who would not have cited the LXX [= Septuagint]) utilized the passage."[67]
A possible explanation is that the Septuagint translation better made James's point about the inclusion of Gentiles as the people of God.[68] Dr. John Barnett stated that "Many of the Jews in Jesus' day used the Septuagint as their Bible".[69]Although Aramaic was a major language of the Ancient Near East, by Jesus's day Greek had been the lingua franca of the area for 300 years.
Relationship to the Gospel of Luke[edit]
See also: Luke-Acts
Since Acts is generally regarded as a continuation of the Gospel of Luke, problems with the historical reliability of the Gospel are also used to question the historical reliability of Acts.
No comments:
Post a Comment