Problem of Historically Reliable Data
Acts gives an elaborative description of Paul and his religious activities. Acts has significant divergence from Paul’s letters in theology and historical data about Paul. Based on these divergences, many scholars are reluctant to use Acts as a historically reliable source to study Paul. On the other hand, one may find a long list of historically reliable data and correspondences between Acts and Paul’s letters. For example, archaeological evidence confirmed that Gallio, whom Luke mentioned in Acts 18:12-17, was proconsul of Achaia.[1] How do we explain these historically reliable data and correspondences?
Solutions
Rayn S. Schellenberg demonstrates
Paul’s itinerary in Acts 15:36–20:16 has correspondence
with Paul’s itinerary that is indicated in Paul’s letters.[2]
In addition, scholars pointed out a number of other correspondences.[3]
How do we explain these correspondences? It might be difficult to attribute
them to coincidence. Or did the author of Acts use Paul’s letters as
Schellenberg argued in his article? However, how do we know that Paul’s letters
were collected by the time Acts was written? If they were collected by the time
Acts was written, how do we know a copy of the collection was available to the
author of Acts? In Acts, it is clear that Paul is not a writer but an orator.
Even if one may fail to identify the right source/s behind Acts, these
correspondences indicate that Acts contains historically reliable data about
Paul.
Christopher Mount demonstrates the
intertextuality among Acts, Acts of Paul, and pastoral letters.[4]
This could be considered as evidence for the efforts that were made in the
Pauline network of communities or Pauline school to maintain the legacy of
Paul. Paul did not disappear from the early Jesus movement just after his
death. His legacy was kept alive through the literary activities of the
movement – collecting his letter and producing literature around historical
Paul. Based on this intentional effort in the early Jesus movement to maintain
Paul’s legacy that is specifically reflected in the intertextuality among Acts,
Acts of Paul, and pastoral letters, I would suggest that getting historically
reliable material from Pauline tradition that was maintained in the early Jesus
communities might be possible. Acts probably gives some reliable historical
data about Paul that the author of Acts might have received from the Pauline
legacy that the early Jesus movement maintained.
Ignoring Acts can be methodolocial issue
I do not intend to
suggest that Acts should equate with what Paul himself wrote in studying Paul. Instead, I would say Acts contain historically
reliable data about Paul, and Acts is not fiction. As responsible historians,
one may consider all the possible sources that are available to one to study
Paul, but one should evaluate the credibility of available sources and use them
judicially. Testing the credibility and value of the passages of Acts that can
find correspondences in authentic Pauline letters could be executed with some
confidence. Therefore, ignoring Acts completely or dismissing it as a legend in
the process of studying Paul might not be a sound methodological decision.
Further Reading:
[1]
James
H Charlesworth, “Why Should Experts Ignore Acts in Pauline Research?,” in The
Early Reception of Paul the Second Temple Jew: Text, Narrative and Reception
History, ed. Isaac W. Oliver, Gabriele Boccaccini, and Joshua Scott,
Library of Second Temple Studies volume 92 (London: T&T Clark, 2018), 159.
[2] Ryan S. Schellenberg,
“The First Pauline Chronologist?: Paul’s Itinerary in the Letters and in Act,” Journal
of Biblical Literature 134 (2015): 196-197.
[3]
For example, Keener gives a long list of
correspondence between Paul’s letters and Acts. Craig S.
Keener, Acts, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge, United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press, 2020), 25-27.
[4] Christopher Mount,
“Acts,” in T&T Clark Handbook to the Historical Paul, ed. Ryan S.
Schellenberg
and Heidi Wendt (London: Bloomsbury,
2022),28-29.