Why the Book of Acts is HISTORY, Not Fiction

On the MythVision Podcast, Dr. Paula Fredriksen argues that Luke was not really a traveling companion with Paul. Acts should not be considered as history, but mostly fictional. She states that the Book of Acts contains contradicts Paul's letters and that Paul fails to mention key historical claims made in Acts. Here I examine her claims.

Join this channel to get access to perks:

[stephengray]

One thing you didn't pick up on that jumped out at me was Fredriksen using Tacitus as evidence that the word "Christian" wasn't used until the second century. But the passage in which he uses the word literally says that the word Christian was in use in 64 AD. It makes me wonder if she has even read all the sources she's using in her case.

[fluffysheap]

Don't forget that one of the two times where the word "Christian" appears in Acts is to record when people first started using the word. So you would expect it to be before other people started using the word.

[DavidWilberBlog]

Well done. I like Fredricksen's work in some areas, but dang. What sloppy reasoning here. "Acts is late because of the word Christian." LOL.

[FearStreetGhost]

“Acts is late because of the word Christian.”

Peter writing 1st Peter between 60-65 AD: Really?

[jamessheffield]

The “Gallio Inscription” is an important artifact which not only confirms that Gallio was the prefect of Achaia based in Corinth at the time of Paul, as Luke records in Acts, but the inscription also is a precise chronological anchor for the book of Acts which places Paul in Corinth in 51 AD and helps to determine a timeline for Paul and his travels.

[JabberWkie]

Imagine hanging off a cliff, and on one side above you is a vine firmly attached to a tree at the very top. On the other side, a few small tufts of grass. These skeptics are the ones reaching for the flimsy, unreliable shreds of grass instead of the extensive and reliable vine. It’s amazing how much solid evidence they ignore in favor of a smattering of ambiguous passages.

[Tzimiskes]

With the accuracy of Luke's description of routes and cities i would say it most definitely was NOT fiction...

[Snoo]

Doesn't Tacitus tell us the during Nero's reign, term Christian was already used by the general population?

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace."
Annals 15.44

[OrthodoxInquiry]

When you were bringing up Paula's awful argument from silence, you should have brought up the eruption of Mount Vesuvius (which I think you have done in previous videos). The fact that the volcanic destruction of an entire city is mentioned by only a single source is incredible.

[protochris]

It's very clear to me reading Acts that Luke knew Barnabas quite well, which places him as a contemporary of Paul. Luke describes many intimate details between Paul and Barnabas; he even pauses his narrative to make a very personal remark about Barnabas, saying "...for he was a good man and full of the holy spirit and of faith". This is someone writing about Barnabas, likely after he passed away, who clearly shared fond memories with him.

[billkamprat]

Skeptics somehow think the gospel writers and writers of the epistles had wikipedia and google

[Michael-bknz]

If Acts wasn't written until the middle of the second century, how could the author not have access to Paul's epistles which were in wide distribution by that time?

[liljenborg]

I always find it interesting that skeptics argue that because Luke doesn't mention some very minor detail about Paul's biography that they think he ought to have included is proof that Acts was written late, but then dismiss a Christian apologist saying that Acts not mentioning the destruction of Jerusalem or even the execution of Paul is an argument that Acts was written before 70AD.

[edcroteau]

This is great stuff, Erik.... using this in my young adults study

[Berean_with_a_BTh]

Paula Fredrickson does a masterful displaying how someone who is either wilfully ignorant of much of the material they're pontificating about - or is intentionally deceptive about it - can misrepresent when the New Testament was written and what it says.


Her idea that Acts wasn't written until the 2nd-century because of the word 'Christian' beggars belief. Aside from the fact that 'Christian' also appears in 1 Peter 4:16, by the time Ignatius of Antioch was using it in c.110-116, it needed no explanation. Note, too, where Acts 26:11 says disciples were first called Christians - Antioch, the very city Ignatius hailed from. Surprise, surprise!


And how many first-century extra-biblical writings about Christianity are there? One - Clement of Rome c.96AD - and Clement references multiple passages in Acts (compare 1 Clement 2.1 with Acts 20:35; 1 Clement 5.6–7 with Acts 26; and 18.1 with Acts 13:22). So how does Clement know about what's in Acts if it hadn't been written until after he died?

Other evidence for a pre-70AD dating of Acts include that Acts doesn’t record - 
• the deaths of Peter (65-67AD), Paul (65-67),  or Jesus’ brother James (62)# 
• Emperor Nero’s persecution of the Christians in Rome (64) 
• the Jewish War or the Fall of Jerusalem (66-70) 
# Josephus,  Antiquities of the Jews,  20:197-203. 

Paul’s quotation at 1 Timothy 5:18 of Jesus’ words “The laborer deserves his wages”, from Luke 10:7, puts the completion of Luke’s Gospel earlier than c.63, when 1 Timothy was written. This provides further corroboration for Paul knowing Luke and an early date for Acts. And, as for whether Paul and Luke were companions, Fredrickson needs to read
*Colossians 4:14*
_Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you_
*2 Timorthy **4:11*
_Luke alone is with me_
*Philemon **1:23**-24*
_Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers_
Maybe then she'll know what she's talking about.


As for the alleged discrepancies between Acts and Paul's epistles, those are nothing more than _manufactured_ contradictions that were debunked long before Fredrickson was born. What she disingenuously relies on is her audience's unfamiliarity with even the New Testament, let alone all the solid evidence against the positions she takes.

[ArrayzableMusic]

I saw this interview and knowing her credentials I was really shocked at her words and lack of direct knowledge of the texts. I'm sure she read another sceptics work. But what was really shocking and made me quite sad was the interaction between them. He was happy like a little boy getting candy everytime she threw something at him that fed his religious level bias towards debunking christianity, and she got her kicks from throwing the candy. MythVision wasn't to be taken serious. Hope they will both do better in the future. Nice job Testify!!

[HatsoffHistory]

Interesting video. I agree that the Fredriksen's case is pretty darn weak. Her argument for late dating based on Luke's use of the word _Χριστιανὸν_ ("a Christian") seems to me especially unconvincing, and you are correct to draw attention to it as an example of employing a kind of implicit circularity.

To be fair, though, what Fredriksen left out is that the word _Christianus_ seems to be a Latinism, and not of Greek origin. And in Latin, the word _Christianus_ first shows up in the second century with Tacitus and Pliny. But even this strikes me as an essentially forceless argument. Why shouldn't a Latinism have migrated into Greek parlance in the 30s or 40s in Antioch in the Roman Empire? And this is assuming it has Latin origin in the first place, which is hardly certain. (As an aside---although perhaps not directly relevant---I can't help but mention that _Παῦλος_ is also a Latin/Roman name!---"paullus" being the Latin word for "small".)

It's also perhaps helpful to note that Luke appears to regard this term as applied by non-Christians. As historian Edwin A. Judge observes [“Judaism and the Rise of Christianity” _TynBul_ 45 (1994) p363], tacking on _-ianus_ to a person's name was a typical way for outsiders to give a "mildly contemptuous" label to groups who followed the teachings of certain individuals, e.g., Nero (cf. Suet., _Nero_ 25.1; Tac., _Ann._ 15.14) or Herod (cf. Mt. 22.16). To illustrate: In Ac 11.26 we are told that the people at Antioch first called them Christians after being preached to about Christ; and then in Ac 26.28 the king Agrippa II uses the term in a plainly derogatory fashion. (Even in 1 Pe 4.16, the context is persecution, i.e. the charge of being _Christian_ by opponents.) Contrast this to where Luke uses the terms _brothers, _ _disciples of the Lord, _ or _the Way_ (instead of Christians/Christianity) when using his own literary voice, where no aspersion is connoted. (One possible exception is Ac 9.2, where then-Saul is hoping to find "any belonging to the Way".) This seems to me to make it eminently plausible that Luke is reporting accurately in his usage of these terms.

[chrisazure]

They treat speculation as fact and ramp it up as truth. Then you get an opportunist like MythVision who gives a voice to those trying to gain notoriety. He gets the clicks and the ad income and they get exposure and a few books sold.

[hglundahl]

3:24 Recall who had to drink a little wine because of his stomach?

Could he have wanted to avoid (very reasonably) seasickness?

[sethlester]

When it's casually mentioned that Paul gets stoned to death (or at least until his brain matter was visible on the outside of his skull which is when the stoners assume a stonee is dead in those days) and then goes to another city (Acts 14:19-20)-
it's easy for those who deny miracles to have a strong desire to disprove what has accidental evidence left in it that shows its validity.