The Genius of the Acts of the Apostles | Dr. Bart Ehrman

In this video, Professor Bart Ehrman joins me to discuss his new course titled "The Genius of the Acts of the Apostles." We cover a few things about Acts including the questions of was it written by the same author that wrote Luke? Was it written by the redactor that inserted Luke chapters 1 and 2 into the Gospel? Does Acts contradict Paul's letters and does it accurately portray Paul's theological viewpoints and is in line with Paul's letters?

[gillesmeura]

Quick and precise questions, ... and answers. Thank you Jacob and Bart! 😊

[riley]

I love Bart's books and courses. ❤

[heavenswindsong]

One of my greater questions concerning Paul, being taught under Gamliel, is that he only went to Jerusalem, two times once for two weeks in another time, where he was hauled off to jail. During that time, Gamliel never acknowledges that he knows him, and it seems impossible that he could’ve been taught by Gamliel ever in Jerusalem, if he was from Tarsis, and went to Rome for education.

[richardfellows]

It would be great if you could find an Acts specialist to discuss Acts on your channel, Jacob.

[richardfellows]

Paul does NOT say that Timothy was in Athens. It only says that Paul, when in Athens, had an opportunity to communicate with Timothy to get him to go to Thessalonica, and that Paul was left by himself when he took advantage of that opportunity. Paul does not tell us the nature of that opportunity, but Acts does. Acts says that Paul sent "brothers" from Athens to Macedonia to pass a message to Timothy (and Silas). Evidently the message to Timothy was to travel to Paul via Thessalonica (which would be a good place to get a boat anyway). There is therefore good agreement between Acts and Paul about the movements of Paul and his companions. I have explained this to Bart, but he repeats the false assertion that Paul contradicts Acts here.

His point about Acts sending Paul immediately to Jerusalem comes down to whether we think "sufficient days" in Acts 9:23 could be about two years. It is not the glaring contradiction that he proclaims.

He misses the point about the "we passages". A forger would surely have wanted is readers to believe that he was present for all the events that he thought were important. Bart's forger failed to do that. It is not enough for Bart to point out that Acts convinced people that the author was present for the sea voyages.

Overall, his assessment of Acts is hugely unbalanced. He seems to agnore the many points of agreement between Acts and Paul, and he overstates the tensions.

[pipurio]

Part 3This is the theory which has been accepted by almost all archeologists for over half a century; it is also
supported by many exegetical believers who, however, do not analyze the matter in-depth in order to avoid
having to highlight the grave contradictions between the theory itself and the "evangelical testimonies".
Moraldi also avoids dealing with these contradictions; in fact, at footnote n. 104 he limits himself to citing
the passage of the Gospel of John which speaks about the Temple (Jh 2, 20) but "forgets" to mention the
miracles carried out by the Apostles under the "Portico of Solomon" outside the Temple of Jerusalem. The
conciseness of Moraldi is understandable: in the cited passage of the Gospel the Jews tell Jesus that the
Temple was built in 46 years, without Jesus objecting to this totally wrong statement; moreover, we know
that according to the Gospel the Saviour strolled under this portico. This is why the scholar avoids going indepth.
It is also important to highlight that - according to "the tradition" - the long-lived Apostle John wrote his
Gospel at the end of the first century, in other words almost thirty years after the destruction of the Temple
by Titus; so if the evangelist had truly existed, in his "parable" he would have first of all described the grave
event and, and after "advising" Jesus on how to answer back to the Jews, he would have dissuaded the
Redeemer, at all costs, from strolling under the inexistent portico of Solomon.
Despite having said this, we must carry out a another critical analysis in order to verify the errors committed
by Christian scribes when they wrote up the "Acts" and transcribed the Gospel of John in his name ... long
after the narrated events.
In the historical documents there is evidence that the Temple was completed (including the external
structures) and inaugurated by Herod the Great. Josephus describes the entire completed structure and its
inauguration in Book XV, therefore we must disagree with the conclusions published by Moraldi and with
those who share his opinions because, as we have always stated, the precise, detailed information which
history has left us must be respected.
In 4 B.C. - shortly after the death of Herod the Great (Ant. XVII par. 254/264) - on the day of the Jewish
Pentecost, a violent revolt broke out in Jerusalem against the Roman Procurator Sabinus (the conflict then
spread to Galilee) and won support of the Jews, Galileans and Idumeans. During the fighting:
"... the rebels climbed up onto the porticos surrounding the external courtyard of the Temple (par. 259) ... so
the Romans, finding themselves in a desperate state, set fire to the porticos, and the roof, full of pitch and wax
was engulfed by the flames and that grand and magnificent structure was completely destroyed" (par. 262).
According to the description made by the Jewish historian, the monolithic columnns of the colonnade were
attached to the top by massive wooden architraves which supported the ceiling: "The ceilings of the portico
were made of massive wood ..." (Ant. XV 416).
The very high columns fell down as a result of the collapse of the heavy ceiling which caught fire in an
irregular manner, thus bringing down the columns themselves, which crashed into one another. It is
important to highlight that the Portico of Solomon was located near the edge of a cliff which looked out onto
a deep valley (the Valley of Cedron), into which many of these columns ended up and disintegrated
irreparably.
The Jewish historian also illustrates the Temple in detail in his first work "The Jewish War" - completed in
the seventies under Vespasian - in Book XV from par. 184 to 226. The close examination describes the three
city walls of Jerusalem in par. 136/183, then from par. 142 to par. 145 we read:
"The oldest of three walls, from the Hippicus Tower went all the way to the eastern
portico of the Temple".
The "eastern portico" was that of Solomon. In "Bellum" the descriptions of the "Ancient Wall"
are "static" - as there is no link to warfare involving all the colonnades - in contrast with
what is stated above with regard to the revolt in Jerusalem after the death of Herod the Great,
during which they were completely destroyed. In 75 A.D. Josephus did not know that he
would have later written "Jewish Antiquities", therefore he illustrated these massive structures
in Book V of "Bellum" (Temple and city walls) before they were demolished once and for all by
Titus. The Roman commander left standing only a few fortified towers for military reasons.
The descriptions of the Temple and of the walls with their imposing towers (which also
mentioned their dimensions in detail) were made by Josephus only after looking at the final
plan which he took pains to save with the consent of Titus. It would be impossible for anyone
to cite measurements which were so precise so as to allow the exact reconstruction of reduced
scale models.
Shortly before the sacking of Jerusalem, the Jewish historian writes in "Autobiography":
"... there not being anything so precious to preserve and whose possession could offer relief to
my misfortunes, I requested and obtained, thanks to the gracious concession of
Titus, some holy books" (Bios chap. 75 par. 418).
Joseph, in his final work "Contra Apione" (Book I from par. 28 to 46), highlights how carefully
the Priests and High Priests of the Temple wrote up:
"Annales worthy of faith for the transmission of public events of which my "Antiquities" are an accurate extract
... and up to this day this custom has been observed".
In the nineties (under Domitian) the Jewish historian wrote "Jewish Antiquities", his most detailed work, in
which he dedicates an entire chapter to the "Portico of Solomon". In this work he mentions that King Herod
Agrippa II, between the end of 63 and the beginning of 64 A.D. (shortly before the arrival of the new
Procurator Gessius Florus sent in by Nero to replace Albinus), decreed that this structure not be erected due
to the high cost.
This dating forces us to highlight an important detail: Josephus Flavius was not in Jerusalem when the King
decided not to build the portico. As is mentioned in his work "Autobiography" (3, 13/16), at the end of 63 he
was sent to Rome by the Sanhedrin to ask Nero to release from prison several Jewish priests arrested by the
previous Procurator Antonius Felix ... and remained here until about the middle of 65 A.D. (ibid 4, 17). Upon
his return to his homeland in 66 A.D., the revolutionary tension had already got underway: things were
coming to a head, and Joseph, like everyone else, was worried more about the future than about the past
and, at this time, was unaware of the details regarding the Temple. This is why he does not mention in
"Bellum" the information concerning King Agrippa II; it will come to his knowledge thanks to the Jewish
priests who continued to record "annales worthy of faith for the transmission of public events". Therefore
"Antiquities" becomes the proof that the Portico of Solomon was not rebuilt, otherwise the Pharisean
historian would have been forced to mention this important piece of information, as important as the
miracles performed by the Apostles ... of which there is no trace in the annales of the priests and High
Priests of the Temple.
Towards the end of Procurator Albinus's term of office (Ant. XX 219/223), King Agrippa II, with regard to the
Jewish people's demand that the portico of Solomon be built, declares: "It is always easy to demolish a
structure" ... This phrase did not refer to a future demolishment but to one which had already taken place in
the past: the destruction of the porticos caused by Roman fire to defend themselves against the insurgents.
And the King added: "... it is difficult to build another (structure) and even more so this portico". There would
have been no reason for the portico of Solomon to have been more difficult to erect than the two which had
already been rebuilt, apart from the greater number of columns that had been destroyed (having fallen down
into the Valley of Cedron). In reality the most difficult to build should have been the southern Royal portico
which had already been rebuilt.
Beyond any reasonable doubt, what makes the proof of the inexistence of the portico of Solomon during the
"Apostolic" period incontestable is the sententious statement made by the historian with regard to the event
dated between the end of 63 and the beginning of 64 A.D.:
"... the inhabitants asked the King to build the eastern portico. This colonnade was a work of King Solomon who
was the first to erect the whole Temple" (Ant. XX 220/1), which ends with the lapidary royal decree of Agrippa
II: "... the King therefore rejected their request" (ib. 222).
The majority of Christian historians recognize the mistake made by Luke the Evangelist (who speaks about
the miracles of the Apostles at the Portico of Solomon), while others attempt to correct these mistakes

[aresaurelian]

I wonder if there could be some hint of comedy, satire, or irony in old manuscripts. It would be interesting to compare with ancient Egyptian inscriptions, and ancient Greek authors. Wonderful mix of chaotic order.

[willempasterkamp]

When the Teacher is a Clown and his Serge is a wicked Priest. btw 'luke' the Serv
is Lucius Anneus Seneca (ananias), 'mark' is marked Drusus Germanicus (zacherias).
Reversed ; Jacobus was the just, marked Claudian and Bartimeus was his Sidekick

[ji]

It should be called Acts of Paul though, since it is quite clearly about him and not the Apostles.

Given that Paul said that his own gospel was to be believed even if an angel of the lord said anything contrary leads me to believe that the only suffering he endured was in hauling his giant ego around .

[youtubeaccount]

Iv heard the first lines of Luke are not the original, because if a scribe wanted to add things they either would add at the top or bottom of the page, maybe a scribe wanted to ascribe Luke with acts because not one know who wrote acts

[doncamp]

If the we passages genuinely identify the author (Luke or whoever) who was with Paul at these points (I agree with that interpretation), that was a significate amount of time, easily years while Paul was in jail in Caesaria and Rome. How is it that he gets Paul's theology wrong in Acts? Bart does not suggest a solution to the puzzle. I think that there must be a solution that scholars have missed. Does that solution have to do with the audiences Luke and Paul are addressing?

The audience of Romans is a church divided into Jewish and Gentile factions (that word may be too strong) that were just beginning to come back together after the expulsion of Jews from Rome some years earlier. Paul's remarks in 1:18-22 was a means of affirming the priority of the Jews as God's people and reminding the Gentiles that they owed the Jews for the gospel that had been preached to them. So, Paul emphasizes the rebellion of the Gentiles, though he is just as hard on the Jew a chapter or two later.

Luke's audience are Gentiles. Luke's objective is to tell of God's opening the gospel and salvation to Gentiles. That btw accords with the last verse in Acts. Those are not necessarily incompatible.

[cpom]

Paul said we are saved by the resurrection of, not by the death of, the christ, 1 Cor. 15:17....

[koreyoneal]

Read 1st Corinthians 9:20-23, Paul was two faced, so there's a high probability that Paul acted certain ways around Luke, so those are what Luke wrote down . The stoning of Stephen comes to mind, Luke records a speech made by Stephen where he mentioned that angels gave The Law to Moses and not Yeh Ho VaH . The only problem is the fact that the bible never says such a thing but Paul does and so does The Book of Jubilees, a text written by a pharisee , so most likely it was Paul who told Luke what Stephen had said

[pipurio]

Parti 2
The portic of Solomon was distroied at the time of Jesus and the apostles.The Temple of Jerusalem and the Apostolic miracles
In the first study we have proven the invention - made by the Christian scribes of "Acts of the Apostles" - of a
fictitious "Act of the Sanhedrin" whose protagonists were inexistent Apostles arrested by the High Priest in
order "to be put to death".
The Holy Apostles who succeeded Christ - appointed by Him to continue to spread the message of salvation
after His Passion and ascension into heaven while still residing in the Holy City of Jerusalem - were accused
by the Sanhedrin of "having preached in the name of him (Jesus)" and of having performed too many miracles
in front of the "portico of Solomon" (Acts 5, 13-16).
These are ridiculous accusations: why would a High Priest of the Temple have wanted to execute those with
such divine powers? We are dealing with a "Creed" based on the one and only testimony passed on to us by
the "Holy Scriptures". These writings speak about men (like Jesus and the Apostles) who lived roughly two
thousand years ago, had superhuman powers and carried out extraordinary miracles; men who, according to
the evangelical narrations, interacted with other famous men who really existed and whose traces can thus
be found in the historiography of this period.
In the first study we verified that the investigation concerning the false testimony about Theudas (Saint
Thaddeus) which the evangelist Luke had Gamaliel give is based on a solely historical profile, simple to verify
as the year of the death of Herod Agrippa I can be found in any encyclopedia; the same goes for the Roman
Procurators Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Julius Alexander.
The "theological" information regarding this false Act of the Sanhedrin, as reported in the Bible, demands
further in-depth analysis; according to what was written by Saint Luke, the "Apostles" were arrested by
the "High Priest and by the Sadduceans full of spite" as they were guilty of:
"... work[ing] many signs and miracles among the people. One in heart, they allused to meet in the Portico of
Solomon. No one else dared to join them, but the people were loud in their praise and the numbers of men and
women who came to believe in the Lord increased steadily. Many signs and wonders were worked among the
people at the hands of the apostles, so that the sick were even taken into the streets and laid on beds and
sleeping-mats in the hope that at least the shadow of Peter might fall across some of them as they went
past. People even came crowding in from the towns round about Jerusalem, bringing with them their sick and
those tormented by unclean spirits, and all of them were cured" (Acts 5, 12/16).
The absurd exaggeration described above does not require commenting (it is just a small example),
therefore the first question to ask oneself is: why is it that the detailed historiography of first century Jewish
events reported by Josephus Flavius - who belonged to an aristocratic priestly family that resided in
Jerusalem in those years and was member of the Sanhedrin - did not mention these events? There is only
one possible answer: they never took place.
In addition to the clear paradox characterizing the narrated event, this statement is supported by an
important detail: the "portico of Solomon", where the Apostles champions of miracles met, did not exist at the
time in which Saint Luke placed the event (right after the death of Christ). Let's see why.
The Temple
In "Jewish Antiquities" (Ed. UTET 1998), Luigi Moraldi - translation editor appointed by the exegete biblicist
Cardinal Martini - on page 980 (Book XV), footnote n. 96, reports various authors of studies concerning the
Temple of Jerusalem based upon archeological excavations.
It must be added that - according to current researchers of the "Israel Antiquities Authority" - there are
practically no remains of the Herodian Temple, apart from a few stones and two marble epigraphs
prohibiting pagan Gentiles from going beyond the area reserved to them.
On page 984, footnote n. 104, which refers to the time needed to build the Temple - begun in 23/22 B.C. and
inaugurated in 18 B.C. - Moraldi stated that "in reality the entire work was completed between 62 and 64 A.D",
therefore under Procurator Albinus and during the reign of Nero, and certainly after the the stunning
performances of the Apostles under a portico which at that time did not exist

[bradlyclark]

I wonder if the Buddha was a hyper child??

[GeorgeHall-geehall]

I have changed my whole original thoughts on Acts...because it helps CREATE "Paul." STILL think there's a GENIUS behind it...but his name wasn't "Luke."

The writer of Acts really only had TWO chapters of any particular benefit...7 and 21. But Every OTHER chapter was a red-herring.

But when he created "Paul" in chapter 7...he was PLAGIARISING an allegory from a 70 c.e. Euangelon. A MARKAN original allegory. The Markan original version would have tied in with Gospel of the Hebrews and still been about the "Youth in the Linen Cloth." COPTS are of the opinion Mark was the Youth in the Linen cloth." So...roughly about 77 years after the initial Euangelon...the writer of Acts used MOST of the SAME CORE plot points.

Still about a Youth...though introduced as a "Young man."

MISSING. "Empty tomb."

But...we can also use a DIFFERENT clue on why Paul was called "Saul." Instead of thinking of the Benjaminite one...think of a GENESIS 36 EDOMITE King Saul. Then you have an ENTIRELY different clue about a ROYAL "youth/young man."

BOTH the Markan original AND the Acts 7 allegory...the "Youth/Young Man" still progresses everything further AFTER a [Samaritan] Itinerant teacher.

Where REALLY is Jesus in this and what EXACT parardigm? First 6 chapters. THEN he flits of or BACK to Heaven. What's MISSING after he does that?

Acts TELLS us...NO bones, NO DNA on the planet.

In otherwords, the "Jesus" was intangible. And stayed that way. The Itinerant teacher was a separate thing but probably claimed metempsychosis.

And then it still progressed to the Youth/Young Man.

And Chapter 21? That Youth/Young Man" royal doing a mad 66 ce dash to the Romans for protection.

Everything is really coded to the two-chapter ALLEGORY.

[PrimaScripturaSemper]

Your creating a fallacy lie Bart, Paul first evangelism was to the Jews throught out Asia minor. He went to the synagogue preaching Jesus was the Messiah from the scriptures. it was the Jews who did not believe his words an he began to convert gentiles to Christianity. Paul preached Jesus was the Messiah an that he suffered (died) and rose again. No where in the book of acts does the author try to record theological doctrine. the main focus are the apostles ministries after jesus accession. where they preached, who they spread the message of Jesus being the risen butchering the bible

[pipurio]

There are many historical fakes in act 😂 poor Luke. 1) Candace it's not a nome, it's a title . At that time was not a Queen to govern the Nubia but a King. Luke copied, mistaking, from Cassio Dione . After 2000 years we know the names of this Kings and Queens of Meroe/ kush reign but neither the holy spirit nor the queen's emissary know that 🤣🤣🤣