Does Acts Contain Actual Eyewitness Accounts? | Steve Walton

WEBVTT
00:00:00.617 --> 00:00:05.200
It's clear, I think, that Luke thinks eyewitness testimony is really important.
00:00:05.200 --> 00:00:10.901
From the beginning of his Gospel, he talks about having consulted the eyewitnesses.
00:00:10.901 --> 00:00:13.923
Rhoda the maid in Acts chapter 12.
00:00:13.923 --> 00:00:19.375
She's named just once, halfway through the story of Peter's escape from prison.
00:00:19.375 --> 00:00:22.606
Who would have named the little episode about him knocking at the door?
00:00:22.606 --> 00:00:23.975
Only Rhoda.
00:00:24.172 --> 00:00:31.887
So this may lead me to a question like, because in scholarship it's contested whether acts such as trustworthy historical documents.
00:00:31.887 --> 00:00:37.600
So how can we even determine whether these eyewitness accounts and acts are trustworthy?
00:00:37.774 --> 00:00:44.573
With Acts there's a lot we can check because Luke generally gets his world right.
00:00:44.694 --> 00:00:46.973
The wee sections are really interesting.
00:00:46.973 --> 00:00:55.194
I sat down and did the maths fairly recently, about six or seven months in total out of the 10 to 12 years.
00:00:55.194 --> 00:01:02.707
Well, they do contain some of the most detailed stories in Acts God, Oman was pressing you, what would you reply to him?
00:01:04.418 --> 00:01:11.819
Welcome back to another episode of Exploring the Language of Scripture, brought to you by NT Greek Tutoring, the place for personalized Greek learning in your spare time.
00:01:11.819 --> 00:01:18.322
I'm your host, Daniel Mikkelsen, the founder of NT Greek Tutoring and a PhD candidate in New Testament at the University of Edinburgh.
00:01:18.322 --> 00:01:25.454
And this podcast exists to make gyms from biblical studies accessible to everyday Christians and show how the biblical languages opens up scripture.
00:01:25.454 --> 00:01:31.225
Our aim is to increase your love for God and His word so that we become more joyful witnesses for His mission.
00:01:31.245 --> 00:01:33.838
And today I'm honored to be joined by Steve Walton.
00:01:33.838 --> 00:01:38.501
who is the senior research fellow at Trinity College Bristol.
00:01:39.003 --> 00:01:43.075
Before that, he was the professor of New Testament at St.
00:01:43.075 --> 00:01:44.906
Mary's University in Twickenham.
00:01:45.427 --> 00:01:49.430
And Steve is also an ordained Anglican minister.
00:01:49.929 --> 00:02:06.076
He has a wide interest in New Testament studies, which also shows in his extensive publications of books, edited books, chapters, and journal articles on areas from Paul, the Gospels, textual criticism, Acts, and then I probably forgot something.
00:02:06.076 --> 00:02:32.615
m Recently has been writing on a commentary on Acts for the Word Biblical Commentary series of which the first of the three volumes has been published in on Acts chapter 1 until 9.42 earlier this year and it is also Acts that we'll be talking about in this particular episode specifically the evidence of eyewitness account in Acts.
00:02:33.098 --> 00:02:35.479
So if you want to know more about that then stick around.
00:02:35.479 --> 00:02:39.801
I for one am very excited about it, discuss this in more detail.
00:02:40.143 --> 00:02:47.625
And I had the privilege to hear Steve presenting oh twice on very interesting topics in Acts.
00:02:48.284 --> 00:03:06.681
First at BNTS last year, the British New Testament Society, and more recently at the Tyndale Fellowship Conference on the topic that we will actually be discussing today on the podcast and this is also where we met in person, and it's such a great pleasure and privilege to have you on the podcast, Steve.
00:03:06.681 --> 00:03:08.765
Thank you for wanting to join me on the podcast.
00:03:08.765 --> 00:03:09.796
Welcome here.
00:03:10.266 --> 00:03:12.096
Thank you, it's lovely to be here.
00:03:13.245 --> 00:03:13.727
Wonderful.
00:03:13.727 --> 00:03:17.360
Anything else you want to add before we jump into some questions?
00:03:17.935 --> 00:03:32.010
Well, the things you may not know about me is that I'm a retired international volleyball referee um and I'm the co-owner of Flora, who's a border terrier, with my wife, Allie, who's a retired Anglican minister.
00:03:32.143 --> 00:03:32.963
Mmm.
00:03:32.985 --> 00:03:33.905
Yes.
00:03:34.067 --> 00:03:34.669
Very good.
00:03:34.669 --> 00:03:36.252
I didn't know that.
00:03:36.252 --> 00:03:39.657
I think I may have heard that you had been a volleyball referee.
00:03:41.106 --> 00:03:43.491
Yes, should we dive into the questions?
00:03:45.201 --> 00:03:46.122
Very good.
00:03:46.808 --> 00:03:49.687
So how did you get into the study of biblical languages?
00:03:50.776 --> 00:04:11.600
Well, I learned my Greek and Hebrew when I was an undergraduate at Cambridge, when I was training to be ordained, um and studied them there and just got very excited about working with the New Testament and particularly with the Greek text.
00:04:11.600 --> 00:04:19.185
So my own engagement with Greek then grew, partly through PhD work myself.
00:04:19.446 --> 00:04:28.994
And partly through teaching, there's actually nothing better for clarifying your own thinking to have to explain it to someone else.
00:04:29.194 --> 00:04:33.218
And that's been a major way my understanding of Greek's grown.
00:04:33.723 --> 00:04:34.634
Hmm.
00:04:34.877 --> 00:04:36.230
Yes, that's wonderful.
00:04:36.230 --> 00:04:37.603
Yeah.
00:04:37.632 --> 00:04:41.774
Yeah, I think there is like, if you want to understand it, then teach it.
00:04:44.267 --> 00:04:45.059
Yep.
00:04:45.242 --> 00:04:46.814
Yep, exactly.
00:04:46.916 --> 00:04:47.997
Yeah, yeah.
00:04:48.980 --> 00:04:57.569
But, like, how did you experience how to, like, know the biblical languages and how they've opened up scripture for you?
00:05:00.107 --> 00:05:20.057
As well as being a scholar, I'm a pastor and m preaching has been one of the places where time after time after time reading the original has opened up things that I wouldn't have guessed were there from reading the English versions.
00:05:20.057 --> 00:05:26.353
I habitually read 10 or 20 English versions when I preach on a text.
00:05:26.353 --> 00:05:27.209
Hmm.
00:05:27.850 --> 00:05:31.194
I always like to go back to the original because that just...
00:05:31.194 --> 00:05:35.755
There are things that you don't pick up.
00:05:36.276 --> 00:05:43.819
In Greek, word order often shows you emphasis in the text that you wouldn't guess.
00:05:43.819 --> 00:05:54.615
In English, we know what word order is because it goes, the subject comes first, the verb comes next, the object of the verb comes next, the indirect object of the verb comes after that.
00:05:54.615 --> 00:06:02.807
In Greek, as you know, you can put words in almost any order, but what you put up front is the place of emphasis.
00:06:02.807 --> 00:06:10.370
And that sort of thing shows you things about what the writer's saying that you might well miss otherwise.
00:06:10.370 --> 00:06:28.870
So it's been preaching and teaching students, particularly second and third year Greek text students, as they've started, as they've got to grips with the nitty gritty of how verbs work, how nouns work and so on.
00:06:28.870 --> 00:06:41.095
Then helping them to recognise what the author's doing with the way they order the text and the choices of words they make and the choices of words.
00:06:41.755 --> 00:06:47.538
Choice implies meaning is one of the things that people say a lot about languages.
00:06:48.740 --> 00:07:02.634
It's often interesting to notice the word they haven't used as well as the word they have used for something because there's a choice involved and it's not an accident that they've done it that way.
00:07:03.583 --> 00:07:07.786
Yeah, I think it's very helpful is to say that choice implies meaning.
00:07:07.786 --> 00:07:25.309
I Steve Runge uses that in his Discord grammar, oh where he actually opposes a trend that think have been popular within some Greek studies that Greek word order is almost random.
00:07:26.290 --> 00:07:27.112
Yes.
00:07:27.379 --> 00:07:31.901
Yeah, but I think it's correct what Steve is saying as what you're saying.
00:07:31.901 --> 00:07:43.526
em Essentially, you had the same name, But I guess the point here is that, as you're pointing out, that when you choose something, then you mean something specifically by it.
00:07:43.526 --> 00:07:45.206
Yes, yes.
00:07:45.706 --> 00:07:54.988
And if, as you know, the two major past tenses in Greek are the aorist and the imperfect.
00:07:54.988 --> 00:08:04.232
And the imperfect implies you're looking at an action that's in process of happening, whereas in the aorist you're looking at an action as a whole.
00:08:05.351 --> 00:08:11.661
Now, that doesn't mean the author is necessarily describing what happens.
00:08:11.661 --> 00:08:15.442
It's about the perspective the author has on something.
00:08:15.824 --> 00:08:19.745
Does he want you to recognise that this is something in process of happening?
00:08:19.745 --> 00:08:36.432
That happens in, for instance, the summaries in the Book of Acts at the end of chapter two and the end of chapter four, where he summarises events and he uses imperfects to say, this is typical of the stuff they were doing over that period of time.
00:08:36.591 --> 00:08:46.432
Whereas when Paul sets out on a journey, It's often an aorist because it's just one particular event that he's showing you.
00:08:46.432 --> 00:08:54.153
It's kind of like a snapshot of that event as a whole, rather than with the imperfect.
00:08:54.153 --> 00:08:57.388
um It's like watching little video.
00:08:57.961 --> 00:08:58.881
Hmm.
00:08:58.923 --> 00:09:08.475
Yeah, I think that's that's a very helpful way of like describing the two because I found with my students that they sometimes struggle a little bit with the aorist.
00:09:08.475 --> 00:09:09.855
Like, what is this?
00:09:09.855 --> 00:09:10.898
What is going on here?
00:09:10.898 --> 00:09:13.514
Because Yeah, yeah.
00:09:13.514 --> 00:09:19.701
The English past simple, he said, isn't really like the aorist.
00:09:20.682 --> 00:09:25.727
Although that's often we often use the English past simple to translate it.
00:09:25.908 --> 00:09:30.494
But it's it's looking at events as a whole.
00:09:31.907 --> 00:09:32.456
Exactly.
00:09:32.456 --> 00:09:43.336
and then sometimes how do we distinguish between when we translate, for example, how do we think really distinguish between an imperfect and an aorist?
00:09:43.336 --> 00:09:48.808
It can be very hard for especially new Greek learners to grasp that reality.
00:09:48.808 --> 00:09:50.451
yeah, yeah.
00:09:50.533 --> 00:09:54.181
This is why it's worth knowing Greek so you can look at it for yourself.
00:09:55.143 --> 00:09:55.764
Exactly.
00:09:55.764 --> 00:10:05.738
Yeah, do you have some more specific examples of how you've experienced God's Word opening up to you that wasn't in the translation?
00:10:06.571 --> 00:10:10.732
let me give you a couple of examples from the first volume of my commentary.
00:10:10.732 --> 00:10:26.456
In Acts 2.46, the NRSV updated version translates day by day as they spent much time in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts.
00:10:26.456 --> 00:10:32.339
The NIV has every day they continue to meet together in the temple courts.
00:10:32.610 --> 00:10:36.533
They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts.
00:10:36.533 --> 00:10:43.179
And the impression you get from both of those versions is they only ate together at home.
00:10:44.360 --> 00:10:46.482
And the Greek does not say that.
00:10:46.482 --> 00:10:55.250
uh The word for eating um is that they ate food.
00:10:55.250 --> 00:10:57.971
And that's the main verb of the sentence.
00:10:58.833 --> 00:11:00.615
And they...
00:11:01.003 --> 00:11:07.446
So they ate food with glad and sincere hearts is the main part of the sentence.
00:11:07.446 --> 00:11:18.190
There are then two participle clauses, day by day meeting together in the temple and breaking bread in homes.
00:11:18.610 --> 00:11:30.274
So those two participle clauses are qualifying the they ate together, they ate food together with glad and sincere hearts.
00:11:30.326 --> 00:11:34.729
So they were eating together both in the temple and in their homes.
00:11:35.289 --> 00:11:51.999
Now that's not terribly surprising because of course Jewish pilgrims would come and bring an animal or a bird to offer in sacrifice and they would get part of it back to eat and they would sit and eat in the temple courts.
00:11:51.999 --> 00:12:13.912
So eating in the temple courts isn't terribly unusual but it does suggest that the earliest Part of the earliest Christians' evangelism was as they ate together, other people might join them and overhear their teaching, overhear their speaking as they sat together at meals with them and came to faith that way.
00:12:13.912 --> 00:12:26.808
So I think that gives you a more interesting, it's a more interesting picture of their mission, but I think it's also more accurate picture that it's not simply that they kind of went out and found people.
00:12:26.808 --> 00:12:30.581
but people were attracted to this group that met in the temple.
00:12:31.602 --> 00:12:32.903
That's one.
00:12:33.745 --> 00:12:50.418
Another example is in chapter six, where the group appoint the seven to look after the Greek-speaking widows, because there's a dispute between the Hebrew-speaking widows and the Greek-speaking widows.
00:12:50.837 --> 00:13:04.046
And what they do is the apostles say, OK, we mustn't do this because that will stop us doing the ministry of the word and prayer that's our priority.
00:13:04.046 --> 00:13:11.668
So you guys, the community, choose seven people, choose seven men to do this.
00:13:11.769 --> 00:13:12.830
And they do.
00:13:12.830 --> 00:13:17.510
And verses five and six of chapter six, here's the NIV.
00:13:17.772 --> 00:13:19.942
Peter's proposal pleased the whole group.
00:13:19.942 --> 00:13:26.695
They chose Stephen, Philip, Procarus, Niconore, Timon, Parmenes and Nicholas from Antioch.
00:13:27.009 --> 00:13:32.760
They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid their hands on them.
00:13:33.402 --> 00:13:46.307
The picture there is that the group choose the seven, they present them to the apostles, the apostles then commissioned them by laying hands on and praying.
00:13:46.307 --> 00:13:50.548
The NRSV updated does exactly the same thing.
00:13:50.548 --> 00:13:55.110
They had these men stand before the apostles who prayed and laid their hands on them.
00:13:56.355 --> 00:13:58.296
That isn't what the Greek says.
00:13:59.097 --> 00:14:04.143
The group who choose are the group who lay hands.
00:14:05.644 --> 00:14:19.339
In the Greek grammar, they chose, this pleases the community, and they chose, Stephen, et cetera.
00:14:21.037 --> 00:14:28.633
they presented them to the apostles and they prayed and laid hands on them.
00:14:29.193 --> 00:14:32.054
I don't think the they has changed.
00:14:33.216 --> 00:14:43.846
You're getting a picture of the whole community forming kind of like a scrum and laying hands on them and commissioning them.
00:14:43.846 --> 00:14:51.010
Now that's symbolic of the way that leadership in the early community is not dictatorship.
00:14:52.482 --> 00:14:56.764
The apostles have said to the community, you choose these seven.
00:14:57.004 --> 00:15:08.807
Luke hasn't told us about the mechanism and we'd love to know, but Luke has shown us that it's the community in whom the Spirit dwells who make the decision.
00:15:09.028 --> 00:15:18.691
And my reading of verse six is that it's actually the community who commissioned them by laying hands on them and praying for them.
00:15:18.691 --> 00:15:25.774
With the apostles standing there, So the apostles would have been part of this, but it's not just the apostles.
00:15:25.774 --> 00:15:34.375
So it's not a sort of, it's not delegation from the apostles downwards, it's delegation upwards from the community.
00:15:34.934 --> 00:15:43.075
So when I think when you read the text carefully, you discover the picture isn't the picture we've got.
00:15:43.075 --> 00:15:50.554
And that's very different to the way we think of commissioning today.
00:15:51.164 --> 00:15:51.852
Hmm.
00:15:51.852 --> 00:16:05.668
These seven have been seen as the predecessors of deacons in the church and they're never actually called deacons, although the verb, διακονέω (diakoneō), is to serve, from which we get the word deacon is there.
00:16:05.988 --> 00:16:12.889
But it's not that it's kind of like the bishop lays hands on them, the apostles lay hands on them to commission them.
00:16:12.889 --> 00:16:14.370
It's the community.
00:16:15.530 --> 00:16:25.850
So those, I think, are two really quite interesting examples where A careful reading of the text gives you different picture of what's actually going on.
00:16:26.147 --> 00:16:26.769
Hmm.
00:16:26.769 --> 00:16:30.719
Yeah, I think this is helpful how you can see how...
00:16:32.326 --> 00:16:48.687
Yeah, the second example is that how the subject changed, and it might not necessarily been intentional from the translators to do it, but the Greek shows that more clearly, how that works.
00:16:49.062 --> 00:16:54.490
I think it betrays the translator's assumptions about what's going on.
00:16:54.818 --> 00:16:55.769
Hmm.
00:16:56.494 --> 00:16:57.174
Yeah.
00:16:57.174 --> 00:17:02.820
And I think it's important to note that when in Greek, a subject change is usually signaled.
00:17:02.820 --> 00:17:07.621
So it signals from like, I think it's a like, an example.
00:17:07.621 --> 00:17:10.080
I have an example from Paul where that happens.
00:17:11.000 --> 00:17:29.361
So when you're looking at how, what the body is that is laid in the tomb, like who's sewn and then is raised in 1 Corinthians 15.42, I think it is, if I remember correctly from the top of my head.
00:17:29.780 --> 00:17:35.904
It talks about it is sewn in in corruption and raised in glory and so on.
00:17:36.884 --> 00:17:44.045
We have the same verb coming, two verbs coming four to three times, four times in the text.
00:17:45.545 --> 00:17:53.244
And some commentators assume that it's not the same body that is sown, that is raised, but grammatically that's impossible.
00:17:54.684 --> 00:18:16.750
Because if it had to be like, I think James Ware had pointed that out really well in an article he published in JBL a few years ago, where he says that if that was the case, if it was two different bodies, there should have been a ὁ(ho) sort of like, or τίς (tis) or something like that, included before the second verb, because then we know: it's not the same.
00:18:16.750 --> 00:18:19.730
And that should happen every time the subjects change.
00:18:20.810 --> 00:18:27.730
And so that was my point about like, that Greek does have like, it usually signals if the subject change.
00:18:27.730 --> 00:18:36.688
in a specific way, either by indicating it with a pronoun or by changing the person of the verb.
00:18:37.102 --> 00:18:38.136
Yes, yes.
00:18:38.136 --> 00:18:41.919
So I just wanted to add to your point on that remark.
00:18:42.859 --> 00:18:43.820
Yeah.
00:18:44.121 --> 00:18:50.928
So, but maybe we should like transition into talking a little bit more about like Acts.
00:18:50.928 --> 00:19:01.266
I think it would be interesting for people to know that before we turn to the like topic of eyewitnesses, why you actually were first of all became interested in studying Acts.
00:19:01.635 --> 00:19:04.057
Learning New Testament Greek can be a real challenge.
00:19:04.057 --> 00:19:10.740
If that's been your experience, I've put together a free PDF guide called Why Learning Greek Could Be a Struggle and How to Move Forward.
00:19:10.740 --> 00:19:17.605
Inside you'll find the most common pitfalls and my simple three step framework to help you start reading Greek with more confidence.
00:19:17.605 --> 00:19:21.926
Get your free copy today by clicking the link in the description below or the pinned comment.
00:19:21.926 --> 00:19:23.268
Now back to the episode.
00:19:23.268 --> 00:19:30.983
before we turn to the like topic of eyewitnesses, why you actually were first of all became interested in studying Acts.
00:19:31.069 --> 00:19:36.121
Yeah, in my first term in Cambridge, I wrote an essay for Charlie Moule, C.
00:19:36.121 --> 00:19:36.464
F.
00:19:36.464 --> 00:19:36.808
D.
00:19:36.808 --> 00:19:45.157
Moule, everyone knew him as Charlie, uh about the major theological emphases of Luke.
00:19:46.459 --> 00:19:57.644
And as I was reading for the essay, I discovered that there was a major debate about whether the portrait of Paul in Acts is like the portrait of Paul in the letters.
00:19:57.664 --> 00:20:06.724
and particularly German scholarship, Vielhauer, Conzelmann, and Haenchen took a very negative view of that.
00:20:08.345 --> 00:20:23.525
And I really wasn't convinced by that at all, because it seemed to me there were some great similarities, and of course differences of emphasis between the Pauline letters and Acts.
00:20:24.449 --> 00:20:31.509
I did that in my first term of my undergraduate studies and that became an interest that I pursued.
00:20:32.108 --> 00:20:53.929
So I wrote an undergraduate dissertation in that area and then later on my doctorate was on that area because I worked on the speech of the Ephesian elders in Acts chapter 20 which is the only time Paul addressed us a believing community.
00:20:53.929 --> 00:20:54.871
in the Book of Acts.
00:20:54.871 --> 00:20:59.553
So it's the most letter-like situation in the Book of Acts.
00:20:59.634 --> 00:21:11.039
The other times Paul is either speaking to people who not yet believers, Christian, Jewish or not, or in a courtroom scene.
00:21:11.119 --> 00:21:17.182
And neither of those alike writing to the Thessalonians or the Galatians.
00:21:17.463 --> 00:21:21.715
So that letter, that speech is critical.
00:21:21.806 --> 00:21:29.222
And I compared it with First Thessalonians because nobody in scholarship doubts that Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians.
00:21:29.222 --> 00:21:40.162
So it provided a solid database and found that there were lots of similarities in vocabulary and ideas, sometimes quite unusual words.
00:21:40.442 --> 00:21:45.396
So that was the kind of story of how I got into Acts.
00:21:45.396 --> 00:21:58.432
And then soon after I finished the PhD, uh Ralph Martin, who was then the editor of the New Testament series of the Word Biblical Commentary, approached me and said, would you be interested in writing?
00:21:58.432 --> 00:22:01.895
And I thought about it, took advice and said, yes.
00:22:01.997 --> 00:22:05.570
So that's been the kind of journey.
00:22:05.994 --> 00:22:06.815
Yeah.
00:22:07.416 --> 00:22:07.917
Very good.
00:22:07.917 --> 00:22:08.720
Very good.
00:22:08.720 --> 00:22:09.361
Yeah.
00:22:09.361 --> 00:22:10.942
Very interesting.
00:22:10.962 --> 00:22:11.334
Yeah.
00:22:11.334 --> 00:22:19.256
I think it even still is a very contentious subject about Acts and Paul and maybe even more so now in the Anglo-Saxon world.
00:22:19.256 --> 00:22:29.683
em Yeah, I think it's now a different debate to what it was in the 1950s and 60s because the new perspective on Paul's happened.
00:22:29.824 --> 00:22:44.567
And the picture of Paul that Vielhauer, Conzelmann, and Haenchen were working with was a classic old perspective, traditional Lutheran view of Paul.
00:22:45.689 --> 00:22:49.990
And people's understanding of Paul has changed.
00:22:50.554 --> 00:22:54.959
There's a massive range of views about Paul.
00:22:55.820 --> 00:23:00.586
So if I were doing the thesis now, I'd have to do it in very different way.
00:23:01.594 --> 00:23:05.394
So I'm glad I'm not doing it now, because it was tough enough then.
00:23:05.594 --> 00:23:06.424
Yes, sure.
00:23:06.424 --> 00:23:07.567
Sure, I can understand that.
00:23:07.567 --> 00:23:08.952
Yeah, yeah.
00:23:08.952 --> 00:23:10.030
So, but...
00:23:12.038 --> 00:23:21.093
Another question that might be sort of, it might be an obvious question for some is why does it seem like Acts stands out amongst the New Testament writings?
00:23:21.454 --> 00:23:23.516
Acts is unique.
00:23:23.516 --> 00:23:29.259
It's the only book that tells the story of the early Christians and the growth of the believing community.
00:23:29.259 --> 00:23:34.082
So it's the bridge between the Gospels and the letters.
00:23:34.122 --> 00:23:53.172
And it's interesting that in the New Testament canon, in the manuscripts we've got and in the canon lists we've got, Acts is never next door to Luke, which from Our point of view is surprising because we always associate Luke and Acts together because they're by the same author.
00:23:53.672 --> 00:24:03.555
But the earliest Christians who put manuscripts together and canon lists together thought of the fourfold gospel as belonging together.
00:24:03.555 --> 00:24:07.195
Then came Acts and then came the letters.
00:24:07.195 --> 00:24:13.737
And interestingly, in many manuscripts, it's the Catholic letters that come next.
00:24:13.978 --> 00:24:15.758
And then Paul's.
00:24:16.354 --> 00:24:27.222
One of the interesting things with the Tyndale House Greek New Testament is they followed that order and the Nestle-Ollant 29th edition which is coming next year will be doing the same.
00:24:27.222 --> 00:24:36.410
um So we're going to have to get used to Romans not following straight after Acts in our Greek New Testaments.
00:24:36.410 --> 00:24:41.974
um But I think that's because in Acts Peter comes before Paul.
00:24:41.974 --> 00:24:45.298
So you put the Petrine letters, Johannine letters.
00:24:45.511 --> 00:24:58.029
all there before you go onto the Pauline, although most scholars take the view that the Pauline letters are actually the oldest part of the New Testament we have.
00:24:58.215 --> 00:24:59.115
Hmm.
00:24:59.415 --> 00:25:00.807
Yeah, it's interesting.
00:25:00.807 --> 00:25:01.596
Yeah.
00:25:01.596 --> 00:25:06.878
Point is that like how the Catholic epistles are put earlier.
00:25:07.479 --> 00:25:15.031
And then you go through like the Pauline Corpus and then Hebrews and then Revelation.
00:25:15.031 --> 00:25:17.797
Yeah.
00:25:17.797 --> 00:25:19.417
it's very interesting.
00:25:19.417 --> 00:25:29.053
mean, I take my Tyndale House Greek New Testament to church to follow the readings and I've kind of got used to doing it that way.
00:25:30.775 --> 00:25:39.898
Although it's a different order to the order I'm used to, but when the new Nestle-Aland comes next year, we'll all have to get used to it.
00:25:40.257 --> 00:25:44.680
I have my copyright here of the Tyndale House.
00:25:45.923 --> 00:25:47.744
I use that every day.
00:25:47.865 --> 00:25:51.490
So I'm also after some time, gotten used to it.
00:25:52.491 --> 00:25:58.417
It is very interesting perspective on how the manuscript...
00:25:58.766 --> 00:26:02.348
yeah, it does reflect what many of the earliest manuscripts have.
00:26:03.711 --> 00:26:09.345
So Codex Sinaiticus which sits in the British Library, does things that way.
00:26:10.363 --> 00:26:18.415
Yeah, and most canon lists, as you said, m and other codices later as well.
00:26:18.702 --> 00:26:20.246
Yes, Yeah.
00:26:22.036 --> 00:26:22.855
Yeah.
00:26:24.417 --> 00:26:39.451
In a previous episode on the podcast, had James Morgan on who pointed out that the eyewitness testimonies, as generally speaking, were very important to ancient historical writers, at least as important as they are today.
00:26:39.832 --> 00:26:45.326
So the question is, does Acts actually contain any eyewitness testimony?
00:26:46.371 --> 00:26:53.114
Yeah, it's clear, I think, that Luke thinks eyewitness testimony is really important.
00:26:53.213 --> 00:27:02.978
From the beginning of his gospel, the beginning of Luke's gospel, he talks about having consulted the eyewitnesses and the ministers of the word.
00:27:03.098 --> 00:27:05.980
And people debate whether that's one group or two.
00:27:05.980 --> 00:27:09.862
I am inclined to think it's two.
00:27:09.862 --> 00:27:18.066
So Luke values eyewitness testimony, which As James will have said too, is right in line with how ancient historians work.
00:27:18.066 --> 00:27:34.657
Our model of historians, which is they go off into dusty libraries and read, read letters and books and all sorts of things, and then write a book, is not how the ancient authors would have done it.
00:27:34.657 --> 00:27:41.132
They would have wanted either to be there themselves or to have interviewed people who were there themselves.
00:27:41.132 --> 00:27:46.632
So they got eye and ear witness testimony for what went on.
00:27:47.413 --> 00:28:06.520
And so when Luke has Jesus say in Acts 1.8, you will be my witnesses, that's a crucial moment because he's saying to the group who've been with him throughout his ministry, your job now is to give testimony to what you've seen and heard.
00:28:07.361 --> 00:28:12.300
And that fits with the role of the 12 in Acts 2.42.
00:28:12.300 --> 00:28:18.613
One of the key characteristics of the early Christian community is the teaching of the apostles.
00:28:18.874 --> 00:28:33.079
So because they have a unique position, before the gospels were written, before we had access to written testimony to Jesus, oral testimony was all they had.
00:28:33.279 --> 00:28:48.162
And that's why in chapter one of Acts, replacing Judas with somebody who's been there and and Luke spells out the qualifications from the baptism of John through to see his resurrection.
00:28:48.741 --> 00:28:52.364
So it needs to be somebody who can give testimony.
00:28:52.364 --> 00:29:14.971
And that's why I think in the incident in Acts 6 that we looked at a few minutes ago, when the apostles are debating what to do um about this dispute over daily food provision, they say we shouldn't give up the ministry of the word because they have a distinct and unique place.
00:29:16.232 --> 00:29:21.374
So those signals all point to eyewitness testimony.
00:29:22.974 --> 00:29:31.201
In the cases I've talked about, eyewitness testimony to the events of Jesus' life, teaching, death and resurrection and ascension.
00:29:31.201 --> 00:29:41.270
But I then want to argue, and I think we're going to talk about this in a minute, that There's also eyewitness testimony to the events that go on within acts.
00:29:41.761 --> 00:29:42.672
Hmm.
00:29:42.733 --> 00:29:46.700
Yeah, and we might want to dive into that.
00:29:46.700 --> 00:29:50.103
what are some clear eyewitness accounts in Acts?
00:29:50.694 --> 00:29:54.876
Yeah, two of them, I think, are fairly clear.
00:29:54.876 --> 00:29:58.618
One is the stories of Philip in Acts chapter eight.
00:29:58.618 --> 00:30:01.099
We get the two stories about Philip.
00:30:01.121 --> 00:30:10.326
He goes to Samaria and people come to faith and then Peter and John come down from Jerusalem and the spirit falls on them.
00:30:11.686 --> 00:30:18.934
And he meets this Ethiopian eunuch in the desert in verses 26 to 40.
00:30:19.740 --> 00:30:21.330
There are two stories about Philip.
00:30:21.330 --> 00:30:23.672
Where did Luke get those from?
00:30:23.731 --> 00:30:30.294
Well, in Acts 21, the we-character is at Philip's home.
00:30:31.114 --> 00:30:43.637
And Luke tells us in Acts that he's now got four daughters who prophesy and they had a meal together.
00:30:43.637 --> 00:31:09.638
So the picture I have in my head, which Adolf von Harnack suggested at least 100 years ago is that they were sitting around the dinner table reclining probably and Philip said: Have I ever told you about the extraordinary things the Lord did with me?
00:31:09.638 --> 00:31:15.199
And you can see his girls going, oh, dad, not the missionary stories again.
00:31:16.479 --> 00:31:24.199
And I don't know if people rolled their eyes in the first century, but I would think they might have done at that point.
00:31:24.199 --> 00:31:28.358
But at that point, I think that's where Luke got the stories from.
00:31:28.499 --> 00:31:31.739
He heard Philip talk about them.
00:31:33.277 --> 00:31:36.386
and put them in what we call Acts chapter 8.
00:31:36.386 --> 00:31:37.230
So that's one.
00:31:37.230 --> 00:31:56.938
The other one is one of the insights Richard Bauckham's work on the Gospels in his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses has is that sometimes individuals are named and there's no other reason for naming them than to say this is the person who is the ultimate story for this source.
00:31:56.978 --> 00:32:08.980
So Bartimaeus in Mark's Gospel whom Jesus heals from blind is named, Bauckham argues, because that's where Mark got the story from.
00:32:09.740 --> 00:32:14.324
And there are levels of detail in the story that make it sound like eyewitnesses.
00:32:14.324 --> 00:32:19.105
The fact that he had to cry out twice is one thing, for instance.
00:32:19.866 --> 00:32:25.049
Now, think of Rhoda the maid in Acts chapter 12, verse 13.
00:32:25.049 --> 00:32:35.038
She's named just once and She's named halfway through the story of Peter's escape from prison.
00:32:35.278 --> 00:32:40.299
He's in prison awaiting execution in the first half of Acts 12.
00:32:40.299 --> 00:32:44.162
And the church have gathered to pray at Mary's house.
00:32:44.201 --> 00:32:51.424
We know Mary had got a decent sized house because it says there was a porch on the front of it.
00:32:51.464 --> 00:32:56.267
And you only have a porch if you've got a posh house.
00:32:56.646 --> 00:33:11.223
and Peter comes he knocks on the door, and Rhoda dashes out from the prayer meeting to answer the door, and then goes back and says, it's Peter.
00:33:11.223 --> 00:33:13.685
And they say, don't be ridiculous.
00:33:13.685 --> 00:33:18.150
uh It's his ghost, it's a spirit.
00:33:18.150 --> 00:33:22.894
And Peter, bless him, keeps hammering at the door.
00:33:22.894 --> 00:33:27.903
uh This is the middle of the night when he's escaped from prison.
00:33:27.903 --> 00:33:34.575
He keeps hammering at the door and Rhoda goes back and lets him in and they all say, this is amazing.
00:33:35.434 --> 00:33:43.156
And Rhoda's very excited because when she's heard Peter's voice first time, she's filled with joy.
00:33:43.477 --> 00:33:53.509
Now that suggests a bunch of things, one of which is that Rhoda is part of the believing community, although she's a servant, quite possibly a slave.
00:33:53.509 --> 00:33:54.902
in Mary's household.
00:33:54.902 --> 00:34:11.605
But the other is she's the only one who knows the whole story because when Peter gets in the room, he explains how he got out of jail, which Acts records in the bit of the story before he knocks on the door.
00:34:13.987 --> 00:34:15.228
Who would have known that?
00:34:15.228 --> 00:34:16.728
Well, Rhoda would.
00:34:16.829 --> 00:34:19.030
I the other people in the room would too.
00:34:19.030 --> 00:34:22.514
But who would have known the little episode about him knocking at the door?
00:34:22.514 --> 00:34:23.994
Only Rhoda.
00:34:24.556 --> 00:34:31.601
So Rhoda makes sense because she's heard Peter tell the story of the jailbreak.
00:34:31.722 --> 00:34:39.027
She's been at the doorway and gone back and said this to the group and she's gone back and then let him in.
00:34:39.027 --> 00:34:42.730
She's been there in the room as Peter tells the story.
00:34:43.201 --> 00:34:52.373
And then she's heard Peter say, send a message to James about this, I need to get out of town because it's too dangerous for me to stick around.
00:34:52.373 --> 00:35:04.177
So it makes perfect sense to me that Rhoda would be the eyewitnesses, the eyewitness on whom Luke has drawn in gathering that story.
00:35:04.177 --> 00:35:12.338
And I would think it's likely that he gathered it during the two years that Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea Maritima.
00:35:12.507 --> 00:35:26.838
which happens later on in Acts, because the we-character arrives in town with Paul and then the we-character travels on the sea voyage to Rome with Paul.
00:35:26.958 --> 00:35:33.985
So the we-character has had a couple of years to wander around Palestine gathering information.
00:35:33.985 --> 00:35:40.809
And I think that's where he gathered the stories from the early part of Acts.
00:35:41.568 --> 00:35:42.900
met Rhoda.
00:35:45.467 --> 00:35:53.981
If I were Rhoda, I would be telling people that story for the rest of my life because it's such an amazing story.
00:35:53.981 --> 00:35:55.202
Yeah, it really is.
00:35:55.202 --> 00:36:00.568
Yeah, and the thing that she's so excited she forgets to open the door.
00:36:01.155 --> 00:36:03.646
Yes, yes, yeah.
00:36:03.885 --> 00:36:12.471
Yeah, it's very, epic is probably a modern term for that.
00:36:12.471 --> 00:36:17.795
em It's also an ancient term, for other reasons.
00:36:17.795 --> 00:36:28.893
So this may lead into a question like, because in scholarship, some people contest, it's contested whether Acts is a trustworthy historical document.
00:36:29.032 --> 00:36:35.601
Hmm can we even determine whether these eyewitness accountants in Acts are actually trustworthy?
00:36:37.873 --> 00:36:39.653
Well, let me say two things.
00:36:39.653 --> 00:36:52.494
One is that in terms of the general plausibility, we've got evidence from Paul's letters that churches learn about what goes on in other churches.
00:36:53.454 --> 00:37:10.585
So, for instance, in 1 Thessalonians 1, 7 and 8, Paul, Titus, and Timothy say that the Thessalonians believers are examples to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia.
00:37:10.585 --> 00:37:23.565
And that means that they have told the Macedonian and Achaian believers up in Greece and northern Greece what was going on in Thessalonica.
00:37:23.766 --> 00:37:26.706
And that's really interesting.
00:37:26.706 --> 00:37:42.952
Similarly, 2.14–15 in 1 Thessalonians, They can speak of the Thessalonian believers becoming imitators of the Judean believers who were persecuted by their fellow countrymen.
00:37:42.952 --> 00:37:48.396
Now, again, that's implying stories about churches being taught to other churches.
00:37:48.396 --> 00:37:53.219
You can see similar things in 2 Thessalonians, 2 Corinthians.
00:37:53.840 --> 00:38:00.746
So Paul can use the example of the Macedonian assemblies to...
00:38:00.746 --> 00:38:07.666
appeal to the Corinthians to say, look, they gave incredibly generously in 2 Corinthians that is.
00:38:07.666 --> 00:38:15.137
um Here's an example for you guys, because they gave out of their poverty, they gave more than they could afford.
00:38:15.338 --> 00:38:23.684
So Paul's using stories and passing on stories um about other churches.
00:38:23.684 --> 00:38:27.427
So it's highly likely that that happened.
00:38:27.427 --> 00:38:45.847
Ward Gask puts it this way, he says, In the Pauline churches, there was preaching about the missionary experience of the apostles and about the establishment of churches and the spiritual triumphs of the various churches were used for paracletic and paranetic purposes.
00:38:46.867 --> 00:38:53.481
the evidence of the letters suggests it's highly likely that stories about the early Christians circulated.
00:38:53.481 --> 00:39:09.581
The other is to pick up the criteria that Rainer Riesner and Richard Bauckham use for assessing the trustworthiness of the gospels and the transmission of the gospel tradition.
00:39:10.202 --> 00:39:18.742
And Riesner particularly draws on a scholar called Ruth Finnegan, who's worked on oral poetry in non-literary societies.
00:39:19.202 --> 00:39:40.693
And she argues that if you get a careful preservation of teaching, then it's likely if three things were going on, if the teachers thought to be divinely inspired, if the oral text was in a fixed form like poetry, and that there was a group trained to pass the material.
00:39:40.793 --> 00:39:45.335
And that sort of thing clearly goes on in the gospels.
00:39:45.335 --> 00:39:49.777
But I think you can also apply it to Acts.
00:39:50.025 --> 00:39:58.735
So, Bauckham argues that if we generally treat eyewitnesses testimony receptively rather than skeptically.
00:39:59.157 --> 00:40:03.380
In a courtroom, that's where you've got to give eyewitness testimony.
00:40:03.420 --> 00:40:09.625
So trusting testimony is indispensable, says Bolkham, to historiography.
00:40:09.625 --> 00:40:17.190
You simply can't do historiography if you're consistently skeptical.
00:40:17.190 --> 00:40:25.056
And he's looked at some work by psychologists and argues that eight of the factors they talk about are relevant.
00:40:25.755 --> 00:40:33.110
Events that are unusual or unique are likely to be well remembered, like Rhoda's story.
00:40:33.630 --> 00:40:40.293
The importance for the rememberer means that memory is likely to be reliable.
00:40:40.293 --> 00:40:49.159
So the events of Pentecost in Acts 2, which are world-changing events, fit the bill well.
00:40:49.280 --> 00:40:57.320
Thirdly, if the rememberer has an emotional involvement, Peter's prison escape is a great example.
00:40:57.320 --> 00:40:59.740
That's likely to be well remembered.
00:41:00.201 --> 00:41:09.706
Fourthly, if there's vivid imagery, then that's often a marker of um accurate recollection.
00:41:09.846 --> 00:41:14.168
Poor old Peter having to hammer on the door of Mary's house to be let in.
00:41:14.168 --> 00:41:16.789
That's just a vivid detail, isn't it?
00:41:17.369 --> 00:41:23.432
Or the imagery of the spirit at Pentecost, fire, wind, strange languages.
00:41:23.802 --> 00:41:24.554
Hmm.
00:41:24.947 --> 00:41:27.679
Fifthly, irrelevant details.
00:41:27.679 --> 00:41:29.800
Now, they're relatively rare in Acts.
00:41:29.800 --> 00:41:38.143
But taking bail from Jason in Acts 17.8 is just an odd thing.
00:41:38.284 --> 00:41:45.367
Why would you say this unless, as I think, Jason is your source there?
00:41:45.887 --> 00:41:50.889
And Colin Hemer's work provided us with a mass of information like that.
00:41:50.889 --> 00:42:08.014
um In terms of recent memories, whether it's told from a participant's point of view, rather than outside observers point of view, that again is likely to be reliable.
00:42:08.695 --> 00:42:15.391
The we-character is present for the first half of the Philippi story in Act 16.
00:42:15.777 --> 00:42:22.094
And it's through the we-character's eyes that we see the story when Lydia becomes a Christian.
00:42:22.094 --> 00:42:25.335
and they start to meet at her home.
00:42:26.737 --> 00:42:39.842
After Paul's delivered the slave girl who's demonised, the we-character doesn't seem to be present because it's suddenly all about Paul and Silas and the we-character isn't there.
00:42:39.961 --> 00:42:44.253
So at that point, we've lost the we-character's testimony.
00:42:44.253 --> 00:42:49.385
Now, maybe we're hearing Paul or Silas' view as they're thrown into prison.
00:42:49.385 --> 00:42:51.677
They have the earthquake.
00:42:51.677 --> 00:42:55.190
They lead the jailer to faith in Jesus.
00:42:55.190 --> 00:42:57.391
They deal with the magistrates.
00:42:58.012 --> 00:43:03.876
And then we pop up again in verse 40 and we're back in Lydia's house.
00:43:03.876 --> 00:43:10.222
So I think there's evidence that you've got that sort of participant perspective.
00:43:11.643 --> 00:43:17.507
Seventhly, the absence of dating information isn't a negative argument.
00:43:17.507 --> 00:43:29.349
For instance, in John's Gospel, Bauckham links the events in John, which are for specific Jewish festivals, and he thinks that that link is a positive sign.
00:43:29.349 --> 00:43:34.612
But the absence of that sort of information isn't necessarily so.
00:43:34.612 --> 00:43:39.315
But recalling a time of day could be interesting.
00:43:39.315 --> 00:43:46.876
For instance, think of when Peter and John Meet the man who has a disability of his legs at the beautiful gate.
00:43:46.938 --> 00:43:49.639
Luke says it's at the third hour.
00:43:50.159 --> 00:43:56.304
When Cornelius is praying in Acts 10, he's praying at the third hour.
00:43:56.706 --> 00:43:59.407
Now that's the time of afternoon prayers.
00:44:00.208 --> 00:44:03.170
So it's a very specific time.
00:44:03.170 --> 00:44:21.565
Peter in Joppa, when he has this bizarre vision of the sheet coming down from heaven, is praying about noon and Bauckham suggests that specific times are actually often signals of something well remembered.
00:44:22.327 --> 00:44:30.592
And then of course frequent retelling would preserve a memory and hold it accurately.
00:44:31.393 --> 00:44:48.873
So the particular role of the 12 in keeping teaching the stories of Jesus is an example of that and the evidence that I pointed to in the letters where people are telling stories about one church to another.
00:44:48.873 --> 00:44:57.253
And the more they did that, obviously, the more the stories would be put into a particular shape that was memorable and easy to pass on.
00:44:57.253 --> 00:45:13.961
So those sorts of things seem to me to be general factors that indicate that there is a a broad case for the trustworthiness of the traditions that we're hearing in Acts.
00:45:13.961 --> 00:45:22.028
Obviously, that then means you've then got to look in detail at individual points, but there are a lot of those, I think.
00:45:23.422 --> 00:45:36.719
Yeah, that's very helpful, like pointing out these specific factors that we know from elsewhere that is helping to preserve things accurately and faithfully.
00:45:37.360 --> 00:45:52.056
I was wondering how the language of μάρτυς (martys) and μαρτυρέω (matyreo), so like 'a witness' and 'to testify', plays into how trustworthy acts is.
00:45:52.056 --> 00:46:04.510
As you know, uh James P Ware, is arguing that this language is a language of fact and history rather than like tellings and things that are not true.
00:46:04.871 --> 00:46:06.481
And what are your thoughts?
00:46:07.387 --> 00:46:19.534
I think Ware right that the language of witness, that word group, occurs 29 times in the Greek text of Acts, which is pretty remarkable.
00:46:20.115 --> 00:46:31.764
A scholar of an earlier generation, a Canadian scholar called Allison Trites, who in spite of the name is a man, when you spell Allison with a double L, it's a man's name apparently.
00:46:31.764 --> 00:46:40.561
uh Al Trites did a study for his PhD on the concept of witness across the New Testament.
00:46:40.561 --> 00:47:02.152
It's published in the SMTS monograph series from Cambridge and it's a fine piece of work but one of the things he does is show that μάρτυς (martus), μαρτυρέω (martireo) is courtroom language and what's happening is it's being used by analogy in the book of Acts.
00:47:02.528 --> 00:47:11.559
to say the same kind of rigor is involved in telling the stories as if you were on trial in a courtroom.
00:47:11.621 --> 00:47:15.264
So yes, I do think that language is relevant.
00:47:15.860 --> 00:47:17.960
Hmm, yeah, very good.
00:47:17.960 --> 00:47:18.599
Yeah.
00:47:18.599 --> 00:47:33.760
Yeah, I also checked around in it like when I was like looking for these questions and it's very interesting that for the most part is always the disciples like the 12 that is referred to as like μαρτυρέω (martireo).
00:47:33.760 --> 00:47:41.960
So μάρτυς (martus) Or to have like testified so testified can be used in different ways.
00:47:41.960 --> 00:47:47.391
That's a little bit more flexibly language linguistically depending on context Yes.
00:47:49.063 --> 00:48:02.556
definitely something to do with how it's very poignant that it's not using that language about other people who we clearly don't know if they were eyewitnesses.
00:48:02.556 --> 00:48:10.998
em But that is where I think Paul is becoming interesting, because he describes in...
00:48:11.119 --> 00:48:14.380
When he is retelling his conversion story in Acts 22, he...
00:48:15.686 --> 00:48:19.579
is referring in a second person about himself.
00:48:19.800 --> 00:48:23.722
I think it is that he should be a witness.
00:48:23.722 --> 00:48:26.614
uh Yes.
00:48:26.811 --> 00:48:29.483
Yeah, so how does he fit into this?
00:48:30.733 --> 00:48:35.552
He's really interesting because he's not one of the primary witnesses.
00:48:35.552 --> 00:48:42.112
There's a really interesting passage in when he speaks in Presidium Antioch in Acts 13.
00:48:42.873 --> 00:48:58.652
He speaks about, many days Jesus appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem and they are now his witnesses to the people, which is really interesting because he's not saying we, he's saying they.
00:48:58.652 --> 00:49:04.534
He's drawing a distinction between himself and the primary eyewitnesses.
00:49:04.534 --> 00:49:10.235
And I think that's because he wasn't himself an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry.
00:49:10.936 --> 00:49:18.717
I think the only person who's argued that recently is Stan Porter, who thinks Paul did know Jesus in the flesh.
00:49:18.717 --> 00:49:27.193
uh So he's distinguishing himself from those people.
00:49:27.253 --> 00:49:28.050
Yes.
00:49:28.050 --> 00:49:36.157
He's obviously insistent, and the letters show us this, ah that he himself has seen Jesus our Lord.
00:49:36.157 --> 00:49:53.461
And Luke doesn't disagree with that because three times over in chapter 9, through Luke's voice, and then in chapters 22 and 26 through Paul's voice, we hear him tell the story of meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus.
00:49:53.461 --> 00:49:57.724
So he is a witness of the exalted Jesus.
00:49:58.547 --> 00:49:59.172
Mmm.
00:49:59.172 --> 00:49:59.648
Yeah.
00:49:59.648 --> 00:50:02.931
not an eyewitness of the earthly ministry of Jesus.
00:50:02.931 --> 00:50:09.677
So that's the distinction I draw as the kind of testimony he's able to give.
00:50:10.269 --> 00:50:11.641
Yeah, exactly.
00:50:11.681 --> 00:50:20.960
I think it also, the language used also, I think, points to that it cannot be like a visionary appearance he had experienced.
00:50:20.960 --> 00:50:26.769
You've actually met Jesus in a way that a vision couldn't qualify.
00:50:27.469 --> 00:50:34.088
Yeah, it's not that Jesus has vanished from the scene at his ascension.
00:50:34.088 --> 00:50:38.688
It's that Jesus is still active, but he's active from heaven.
00:50:38.688 --> 00:50:43.228
He's now at the Father's right side and he's active from there.
00:50:43.829 --> 00:50:47.469
So, twice within chapter 9 that happens.
00:50:47.469 --> 00:50:49.909
Once with Paul when he appears to him.
00:50:49.909 --> 00:50:56.548
The other is in 934 when Peter says, Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you.
00:50:56.717 --> 00:51:05.653
So it's not like in chapter three where it's the name of Jesus that's used, it's Jesus himself heals Aeneas.
00:51:05.653 --> 00:51:13.327
So Jesus himself is still active, but he's not doing it from earth anymore, he's doing it from heaven.
00:51:13.585 --> 00:51:17.498
Yeah, and that's why I think that Paul is the only exception.
00:51:17.498 --> 00:51:23.927
That when he meets him on the road to Damascus, he appears to him in the flesh.
00:51:24.853 --> 00:51:35.420
yeah, I mean Stephen and Philip are both called witnesses too and it's hard, we just don't have the information about whether they were eyewitnesses or Jesus' ministry.
00:51:35.420 --> 00:51:41.784
They may have been, they may not have been, but they're called witnesses, which is the same word as is used for Paul.
00:51:42.150 --> 00:51:45.594
Mm-hmm.
00:51:46.255 --> 00:51:46.655
Yeah.
00:51:46.655 --> 00:51:49.568
Yeah, do you remember where they're called witnesses?
00:51:51.059 --> 00:51:57.659
Paul speaks about Stephen as a witness in one of his speeches.
00:51:59.239 --> 00:52:00.610
Let's see.
00:52:00.610 --> 00:52:03.706
It's in 26, I think, isn't it?
00:52:05.657 --> 00:52:07.032
Let me just find it.
00:52:07.032 --> 00:52:10.172
This is a really good question.
00:52:10.172 --> 00:52:13.380
I just don't have the references in my head.
00:52:13.626 --> 00:52:14.646
That's all right.
00:52:15.027 --> 00:52:26.373
It was also sort of a question that I just came up with, because I looked and added myself and I wasn't able to find em that, but maybe I did it because I didn't look carefully enough.
00:52:26.373 --> 00:52:34.077
em So that's why it would be interesting to see the reference as well.
00:52:38.518 --> 00:52:39.559
22.20.
00:52:39.559 --> 00:52:56.648
um Paul speaks about the blood of your witness Stephen was shed and I was standing by approving and keeping the coats of those who killed him.
00:52:56.648 --> 00:52:59.989
So he's called a witness there.
00:53:00.306 --> 00:53:01.288
Hmm.
00:53:02.278 --> 00:53:03.320
Yeah, yeah.
00:53:03.824 --> 00:53:09.376
And Philip um gives testimony.
00:53:09.376 --> 00:53:13.677
um Let's see, where is that?
00:53:14.737 --> 00:53:17.739
No, I I'm not quickly finding it.
00:53:17.778 --> 00:53:30.784
But there's a really interesting essay by Peter Bolt about witness in Acts, which is in the collection on the theology of Acts by Howard Marshall and David Peterson.
00:53:31.045 --> 00:53:34.987
in which he looks at how the language of witness is used.
00:53:34.987 --> 00:53:47.076
And it's used differently to, for instance, 1 Peter, where Peter talks about always being ready to give an answer to those who ask you.
00:53:47.076 --> 00:54:00.585
Witnesses there being conceived as something that any Christian can do, whereas testimony in Acts seems to be very specific as to who are regarded as witnesses.
00:54:00.701 --> 00:54:06.474
um which includes the 12 but also includes Steve and Paul and so on.
00:54:07.010 --> 00:54:16.106
Yes, I think that's very interesting and that may be something that could be investigated even further.
00:54:17.648 --> 00:54:34.498
But I think that another question we might want to highlight here is that I think a lot of people talk about verisimilitudes em and how they play into determining the validity of eyewitness accounts in Acts.
00:54:34.498 --> 00:54:42.038
em First of all, maybe it would be helpful for people to explain what verisimilitude actually are.
00:54:43.681 --> 00:54:51.246
Yes, but verisimilitude is about, is the picture I'm seeing plausible?
00:54:52.228 --> 00:55:03.335
So, and with Acts, there's a lot we can check in that respect, because Luke generally gets his world right.
00:55:04.396 --> 00:55:09.018
He uses titles of local officials accurately.
00:55:09.260 --> 00:55:17.168
Cyprus in chapter 13 is a proconsular province with the proconsul resident at Paphos.
00:55:17.168 --> 00:55:20.409
We've got inscriptional material that shows us that.
00:55:21.369 --> 00:55:37.929
When you travel in 16.1, when you travel from the Cilician gates in the east of Turkey today over land, then you come to Derby and then Lystra, not the other way round, and it gets that right.
00:55:38.449 --> 00:55:43.702
In 18.12, Galio is the proconsul of Achaia.
00:55:43.942 --> 00:56:07.014
Now we've got a letter that Gallio wrote to his brother that attests to this and we know that Achaia had a proconsul who was resident in Corinth, which was its capital, between 27 BC and AD 15 and then there was a gap until AD 44 onwards.
00:56:07.094 --> 00:56:09.556
Paul's in Corinth about AD 51-52.
00:56:10.938 --> 00:56:15.411
So it fits really well, does the description for the period.
00:56:15.992 --> 00:56:21.996
Ananias, the high priest in 23.2 is the right person for that date.
00:56:21.996 --> 00:56:37.268
To address a man of equestrian rank, roughly the equivalent of a British knighthood, um you use κράτιστε, and that's exactly the word Paul uses in 24.3.
00:56:37.268 --> 00:56:40.528
um to such a man.
00:56:41.028 --> 00:56:51.909
On Malta in Acts 28.7, the leader of the island, the proconsul, is actually known as the Protoss, the first man of the island.
00:56:52.009 --> 00:56:54.449
And again, Luke gets that right.
00:56:55.148 --> 00:57:06.329
So, Colin Hemer has written a very long book showing as evidence of Luke getting his world right, getting details right that we know from other sources.
00:57:06.472 --> 00:57:12.757
So, so he does verisimilitude extremely well.
00:57:13.079 --> 00:57:30.733
The difference, of course, is that if you and I were going to research the Reformation in England, we could go to a library and read a ton of books, learn about the period and then write something with good, verisimilitude.
00:57:30.733 --> 00:57:34.255
The Wolf Hall books are a good example of that.
00:57:34.255 --> 00:57:40.528
But That wasn't, that sort of resource wasn't available to Luke.
00:57:41.829 --> 00:57:52.768
He's got to have had either eyewitness testimony or he's been there himself, which the we-character seems to be on quite a number of occasions.
00:57:52.789 --> 00:58:06.309
So it looks as though this is, he's portraying the ancient setting well because he's got good, accurate testimony to it.
00:58:06.731 --> 00:58:08.833
Hmm, yeah, that's very helpful.
00:58:08.833 --> 00:58:19.512
And this is slightly off topic, but I feel like it's an interesting question in regards to this is how does the verisimilitudes play into the accounts of miracles in Acts?
00:58:20.614 --> 00:58:21.675
that's much harder.
00:58:21.675 --> 00:58:33.434
Because I think people's attitudes to miracles in Scripture are part of a larger question of what their worldview is.
00:58:33.434 --> 00:58:37.217
um And I think C.S.
00:58:37.217 --> 00:58:48.643
Lewis was right in his little book on miracles, which is terrific little book, in which he argues that the central miracle is whether Jesus rose from the dead.
00:58:48.896 --> 00:58:49.681
Hmm.
00:58:49.833 --> 00:58:55.574
If that's believable, then all the others are plausible.
00:58:56.735 --> 00:59:01.318
And I think Lewis makes a very fine argument for that.
00:59:01.838 --> 00:59:05.480
And I'm convinced Jesus did rise from the dead.
00:59:05.480 --> 00:59:15.664
So I don't have a difficulty in thinking the kind of strange things that went on in Acts, like hearing a man at the beautiful gate who'd been disabled.
00:59:17.177 --> 00:59:22.157
his whole life over 40 years is plausible.
00:59:23.077 --> 00:59:35.356
But if you don't think, if you think history is a closed continuum of cause and effect, then you're going to have a real problem over that.
00:59:35.456 --> 01:00:00.907
I think what's happened in the last 30 years or so is that The miracles of Jesus, for instance, have become more accepted in scholarship because scholars have read other examples of weird stuff happening and have thought, well, if people believed it of others, why not of Jesus?
01:00:01.128 --> 01:00:06.471
So it's become, I think, more accepted that Jesus did remarkable healings.
01:00:06.751 --> 01:00:11.753
So I don't see why the sorts of things Acts described shouldn't be true.
01:00:11.994 --> 01:00:16.157
Acts gives us relatively few very specific stories like that.
01:00:16.157 --> 01:00:23.940
It does speak in general terms about signs and wonders, um which is a phrase from the Old Testament scriptures.
01:00:23.940 --> 01:00:34.143
And signs and wonders in the Old Testament are particularly associated with the Exodus from Egypt and with the time of Elijah and Elisha in First Kings.
01:00:38.168 --> 01:00:45.853
they're things that we can identify the kind of things they might be from the Old Testament scriptures.
01:00:45.853 --> 01:00:56.878
um But I think in terms of verisimilitude, there's not a lot of help.
01:00:56.878 --> 01:01:13.222
um Obviously, if you get reasonably accurate descriptions of illnesses, then you've got a reasonable reasonable ground for saying, this sounds like somebody who has this particular disability.
01:01:13.583 --> 01:01:26.809
I examined a thesis a few years ago at Aberdeen where a retired medical lecturer in her seventies had studied theology and then done a PhD.
01:01:26.809 --> 01:01:31.811
And she looked at stories of healing in Mark, Luke, Acts and Paul.
01:01:32.251 --> 01:01:33.396
Oh, very interesting.
01:01:33.969 --> 01:01:36.481
She was looking at it through a doctor's eyes.
01:01:36.521 --> 01:01:54.896
So it's absolutely fascinating to read her thinking about what kind of illness is being described because on the whole she was very persuaded that the kind of descriptions Mark and Luke and Paul give sound like recognised illnesses.
01:01:54.896 --> 01:02:00.547
They're not just slightly random descriptions of symptoms.
01:02:00.547 --> 01:02:01.927
They actually fit.
01:02:01.927 --> 01:02:20.521
things that we have identified more specifically, some of which were known in ancient times because there were doctors around in the ancient world and Galen's massive medical books show you the diagnostic medicine was around in those days.
01:02:20.682 --> 01:02:28.226
So I think, but I think that's probably the limit of it, depending on the worldview you have.
01:02:28.682 --> 01:02:32.224
Yes, I think that's very helpful saying that way.
01:02:32.224 --> 01:02:39.286
Yeah, I want to know as well, like the Askelpius cult was like extremely popular in the Roman Empire.
01:02:39.286 --> 01:02:50.168
And if people don't know what Askelpius was, he was the healing god um who may actually even have like been an actual healer on earth at one point.
01:02:50.568 --> 01:02:52.250
At least that was what was believed.
01:02:52.250 --> 01:02:55.471
And then he was killed by Zeus for raising people from the dead.
01:02:55.481 --> 01:02:59.215
And then he was given divinity after that, which is a completely different story.
01:02:59.215 --> 01:03:08.289
But it tells something about the worldview of people around that time and what they believe was possible through divine intervention as well.
01:03:08.769 --> 01:03:15.159
And I'm sure they experienced a lot of strange things that we necessarily pay attention to as well.
01:03:15.159 --> 01:03:33.364
Yeah, although, I mean, the interesting thing is I was in Tanzania last year and in non-Western settings, I think people experience these kinds of things more readily than us Western sceptics.
01:03:33.364 --> 01:03:44.833
So I think to compare modern Western scepticism with the ancient world is it's like comparing apples and oranges.
01:03:45.150 --> 01:03:45.715
Hmm.
01:03:45.715 --> 01:03:55.050
It's better to think of contexts like much of Africa, Asia, South America, which is where Christianity is growing today.
01:03:55.244 --> 01:03:58.505
Yes, yeah, I think that that's very helpful.
01:03:58.606 --> 01:04:05.150
So I wanted to like talk about the we accounts a little bit more like in detail.
01:04:05.150 --> 01:04:11.012
Is that because there are lots of people within scholarship who are very skeptical that they are truly eyewitness accounts.
01:04:11.012 --> 01:04:13.313
So how can we know?
01:04:13.795 --> 01:04:19.954
Yeah, it's, it's a bit, the we-sections are really interesting.
01:04:20.155 --> 01:04:28.195
I sat down and did the maths fairly recently as to how long the we-character is there with Paul.
01:04:28.494 --> 01:04:39.735
And it's a relatively short period, about six or seven months in total out of the 10 to 12 years of covered by Acts 16 to 28.
01:04:40.054 --> 01:04:43.795
Now, that means that Luke isn't a constant.
01:04:43.811 --> 01:04:46.813
companion of Paul, assuming the we-character is there.
01:04:46.813 --> 01:04:50.675
And they end and start rather abruptly.
01:04:50.675 --> 01:04:56.956
They just flip into the third person and you think, what happened there?
01:04:56.956 --> 01:04:59.088
So odd things happen like that.
01:04:59.088 --> 01:05:09.601
But they do contain some of the most detailed stories in Acts, the Philippi story, which is reported in way more detail than Paul's ministry in Corinth in Acts 18.
01:05:09.601 --> 01:05:13.400
And we know he was in Corinth for at least 18 months.
01:05:13.581 --> 01:05:19.280
Or in Ephesus in chapter 19, he was there for over two years.
01:05:20.001 --> 01:05:30.201
Now, the riot is reported in some detail, but the general events in Ephesus are reported really rather briefly.
01:05:30.597 --> 01:05:36.010
I mean, there's a huge spectrum of views on the we-stories.
01:05:36.010 --> 01:05:50.199
um Two that I think are interesting are CK Barrett, who wrote the International Critical Commentary, and he thinks that the first person plural, what would have naturally been seen as a claim to be there.
01:05:50.880 --> 01:05:59.186
And interestingly, Bart Ehrman agrees with him, but Ehrman thinks Luke is lying and deliberately lying.
01:05:59.186 --> 01:06:01.289
He's deliberately being deceptive.
01:06:01.289 --> 01:06:05.146
Now that is rather odd.
01:06:06.005 --> 01:06:13.646
A biblical analogue, I think, is the sections of Ezra and Nehemiah that are in the first person.
01:06:14.786 --> 01:06:30.485
Ezra and Nehemiah in the Hebrew canon is one book of the Bible and the author speaks about a number of times, the author of that book has incorporated some material about what I did.
01:06:31.389 --> 01:06:47.201
And the Old Testament scholars think that there is an Ezra memoir and a Nehemiah memoir written in the first person, but the final author of Ezra Nehemiah is included in the book.
01:06:47.621 --> 01:06:52.123
Now, it's not impossible, but the author of Acts is doing that.
01:06:52.264 --> 01:06:58.628
Although it's really hard to distinguish it from the author drawing on his own recollections.
01:07:00.733 --> 01:07:10.702
in that case, whereas I think with Ezra and Nehemiah the Old Testament scholars seem pretty confident that the books were written up some while after the events.
01:07:12.342 --> 01:07:17.748
The events of those sections of Acts where the we-character is present are often very memorable.
01:07:17.748 --> 01:07:34.210
So I'm inclined to think that the we-character is there and I think the we-character links to I decided in Luke 1.3, I decided to write an account.
01:07:34.210 --> 01:07:40.373
And I wrote in Acts 1.1 in my first volume, Theophilus, I wrote.
01:07:40.693 --> 01:07:45.356
So the author is putting himself into the story.
01:07:45.356 --> 01:07:48.438
And I think he's doing the same with the we material.
01:07:49.338 --> 01:07:53.760
So I think it's plausible that that's what's going on.
01:07:53.960 --> 01:08:03.378
And the idea that Lukacs is anonymous, which some people claim, I think is quite impossible.
01:08:03.378 --> 01:08:04.639
Is it really?
01:08:04.639 --> 01:08:15.963
I just don't think it's plausible that somebody called Theophilus, who I think is a real person, would not know the name of the person who was dedicating a book to him.
01:08:17.404 --> 01:08:19.206
That would be incredible.
01:08:19.646 --> 01:08:25.989
So I think that sort of shift into we is very plausible.
01:08:28.779 --> 01:08:34.221
Yes, the we-character is in the shipwreck on Malta.
01:08:34.662 --> 01:08:39.083
So how did he keep his written material safe?
01:08:39.625 --> 01:08:55.792
Well, we've got a gorgeous story from Suetonius of Caesar, holding key documents out of the water while swimming for 200 paces after falling aboard in his biography of Caesar.
01:08:56.197 --> 01:08:56.925
Hmm.
01:08:56.925 --> 01:09:05.051
And the shipwreck was planned for by weighing anchors and waiting for dawn and then aiming the ship at the bay.
01:09:05.592 --> 01:09:17.164
And I think it's also highly likely that Luke, in common with other writers in the ancient world, would have had a duplicate of his notes made and probably left in Caesarea for safekeeping.
01:09:17.164 --> 01:09:20.298
I think, although there are, it's not.
01:09:20.337 --> 01:09:26.077
Some things are not straightforward and we have to be creative and imaginative to reconstruct what's going on.
01:09:26.077 --> 01:09:37.777
I think it's highly plausible that the we character is present in the events and by using the we, the author is making a claim to be present.
01:09:38.990 --> 01:09:41.234
Yeah, I think that's helpful.
01:09:41.395 --> 01:09:46.752
Yeah, and if Bart Ehrman was pressing you, what would you reply to him?
01:09:48.954 --> 01:09:52.836
Well, I'm very glad I've got Joseph Fitzmyer on my side in this argument.
01:09:52.836 --> 01:10:06.529
Because mean, Ehrman is just, the whole case for the plausibility of the New Testament Ehrman rejects.
01:10:06.529 --> 01:10:15.563
Which is just, mean, Ehrman lost his faith sadly, having been a believer when he was a younger man.
01:10:15.833 --> 01:10:16.445
Hmm.
01:10:16.445 --> 01:10:22.238
And I think with that has gone the rejection of all the supernatural events that go on.
01:10:22.539 --> 01:10:27.139
So I think there's a bigger issue than just one particular story.
01:10:27.319 --> 01:10:30.954
I think that's a fair way of putting it.
01:10:30.954 --> 01:10:45.033
um And I think that the evidence, when you actually look at them, I think it's harder to dismiss it than it is to accept them.
01:10:46.842 --> 01:11:05.065
Yeah, So we come to a favorite point in the podcast, or at least a tradition in the podcast, where I ask the question, how can each of the listeners and viewers of this particular conversation we have had today apply this in their everyday walk with Christ?
01:11:05.081 --> 01:11:20.292
em Keep reading Acts, but read it with these sorts of questions in mind um and, you know, scholars who will help you with those sorts of questions.
01:11:20.673 --> 01:11:37.789
But keep looking for the story of what God is doing in the Book of Acts, because I've become persuaded and my commentary and my other work reflects this, that the central thread of the Book of Acts is not human planning, it's God's action.
01:11:38.730 --> 01:11:45.573
God is at work and sometimes the believers are dragged along kicking and screaming behind God.
01:11:45.573 --> 01:12:00.060
uh So when Peter gets back to Jerusalem after meeting Cornelius at the beginning of Acts 11, the response to him is, how dare you go and eat with Gentiles?
01:12:00.395 --> 01:12:00.779
Hmm.
01:12:00.779 --> 01:12:05.630
then Peter has to tell them the story to explain what happened and how God sent him there.
01:12:05.630 --> 01:12:22.975
the conclusion in 11.18 is they say, well, gosh, this means God has also given to the Gentiles the chance to repent, to receive life.
01:12:22.975 --> 01:12:24.796
That's amazing.
01:12:24.796 --> 01:12:29.087
um And it's taken some persuading.
01:12:29.740 --> 01:12:30.980
to do that.
01:12:30.980 --> 01:12:34.341
But it's the fact that God has done it.
01:12:34.341 --> 01:12:45.704
at Pentecost, when Peter speaks, um it's interesting that the verb subjects in most of his speech are not Jesus.
01:12:46.145 --> 01:12:51.646
Jesus is the object of verbs where God does something.
01:12:52.287 --> 01:12:55.108
God did great miracles through him.
01:12:55.108 --> 01:12:58.769
God raised him from the dead, um and so on.
01:12:59.073 --> 01:12:59.993
Hmm.
01:13:00.805 --> 01:13:11.547
the way that Peter argues that um Jesus is Lord and Messiah is to say, look what God did.
01:13:12.288 --> 01:13:28.273
And that, for Christians today, I think that points us to the importance of keeping praying and thinking and saying to God, please help me to see and to hear.
01:13:28.439 --> 01:13:33.872
and to recognise what you're doing so that I can cooperate with you.
01:13:34.634 --> 01:13:39.738
And that's lovely because it takes the pressure off.
01:13:39.978 --> 01:13:51.707
It means it's not all down to us because God is generous and gracious and he's at work and we participate with him in his mission.
01:13:52.188 --> 01:13:58.432
There's an emphasis in contemporary missiology which is called missio dei, the mission of God.
01:13:58.432 --> 01:14:04.945
And it's the idea that God is at work and our role as believers is to participate in what God's doing.
01:14:04.945 --> 01:14:12.078
And I think the message of Acts says to us over and over and over, yes, that's what you should be doing.
01:14:12.078 --> 01:14:16.060
You should be engaging with what God is up to.
01:14:16.060 --> 01:14:26.364
um And that's true at a personal level, it's true at a church level, and it's true uh in terms of serving our communities and our nations, I think.
01:14:26.956 --> 01:14:27.886
Hmm.
01:14:27.966 --> 01:14:28.867
Yeah.
01:14:28.985 --> 01:14:37.533
I think that's a wonderful way to end, to the encouragement to toggle along with what God is doing.
01:14:37.713 --> 01:14:38.484
Yeah.
01:14:38.484 --> 01:14:50.542
Let God lead you in your life and let his mission be a joy for you and know that he is the one doing it and we get to help.
01:14:51.644 --> 01:14:53.164
Yeah, that's wonderful.
01:14:53.164 --> 01:14:55.496
Thank you for joining me on the podcast, Steve.
01:14:55.980 --> 01:14:56.886
You're most welcome.
01:14:56.886 --> 01:14:57.898
It's been fun.
01:14:58.259 --> 01:14:59.654
Yeah, thank you.
01:14:59.654 --> 01:15:01.128
I have enjoyed it very much.
01:15:01.128 --> 01:15:03.528
And to you guys out there, I'll see you in the next one.
01:15:03.618 --> 01:15:09.153
But before you go, if you enjoyed this podcast and you want more people to see it, please subscribe and leave a like.
01:15:09.153 --> 01:15:11.734
It really helps us create more episodes like this one.
01:15:11.734 --> 01:15:12.725
I really appreciate it.
01:15:12.725 --> 01:15:13.615
Thank you.
01:15:13.615 --> 01:15:15.818
Have a great day and I'll see you in the next one.