No longer can Acts be assumed to be historical unless proven otherwise. Rather, the burden of proof has shifted. Acts must be considered non-historical unless proven otherwise. This is the cumulative result of the accomplishments noted above.
That's wishful thinking from the Acts Seminar. Actually, I think 'Acts' is more historical than gMark, for example. I would give 30% of truth for 'Acts' but only 10 % for gMark.
There are many common points between Paul's letters and Acts (outside the ones I mentioned in my blog, where "Luke" hugely distorted, embellished and added fiction). For example, the cities where Paul made converts, and mention of Apollos, Barnabas, Timothy, Aristarchus, Sosthenes, Aquila and his wife, James, John, Cephas/Peter, Silas (= Silvanus). There are more.
Of course, the similarities would make more sense if one accepts each Corinthians letter is actually the combination of three epistles. And most, if not all divergences, between Paul & "Luke", can be explained by "Luke" bias in order to satisfy her agendas or working from incomplete infos.
I also found the Acts Seminar was swayed by a few scholars and accepted from them some absurd ideas:
For example, the Gallio's section in 'Acts' was rejected because the "bema" (either platform or seat of Judgment) found in ancient Corinth might not have been the one existing during Paul's times:
The inscription provides independent evidence that Gallio was proconsul in Corinth and indicates that he was there in the early 50s. It is therefore considered to provide a benchmark for the chronology of Paul. Furthermore, when archeologists dis- covered a bema (a platform or dais that was used for public speeches or proclamations) in Corinth, it was interpreted to be the very bema before which Paul was judged by Gallio as detailed in Acts.
In his seminar paper, L. Michael White presented new evidence that disputes this longstanding conclusion. The centerpiece of his paper was a reassessment of the bema. White pointed out that the bema was dated to the time of Paul based on the story in Acts. His reassessment of the archeological data suggests that the bema was constructed after the time when Paul was there. If there was no bema, then, the Acts story cannot be historical. Instead it would seem that Luke observed the existence of a bema in Corinth in his own day, in the early second century, added data he had gathered about the governorship of Gallio, and out of this created the story we have in Acts.
(from
http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects ... ting-2007/)
Another example:
Also affirmed were Shea’s recommendations that the following names should be read as symbolic rather than historical: Theophilus (“God lover”; Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1), Felix (“Happy”) and Portius Festus (“Porky”; Acts 3:24–26:32), Tabitha or Dorcas (“Gazelle”; Acts 9:36), and Aeneas (based on a character in Vergil’s Aeneid; Acts 9:33–34).
from
http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects ... ting-2007/
Felix is also named in Josephus' Wars, Tacitus and Suetonius and cannot be a symbolic name.
And there were a few Portius in antiquity:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/sea ... reco-Roman
Josephus has "son of Dorcas" here:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ht=tabitha
As for Aeneas, apart from the legendary Aeneases, there were a few historical ones:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/sea ... rue&page=1
Of course, that does not mean the stories involving these names in 'Act's are true, just that the names were also used by real people in antiquity.
In her paper, Shelly Matthews proposed a revision to the hypothesis of Joseph Tyson that Acts was written to oppose the challenge of Marcionism. Critics of Tyson’s thesis point out that Marcion’s ideas did not become widely known until the 140s in Rome, which is much later than the proposed dating of Acts (ca. 115). Matthews argues in response that Marcionite ideas could very easily have been in circulation in the early second century in Asia Minor, which was Marcion’s homeland and the place where Acts was probably written. This argument is buttressed by the strong evidence that an anti-Marcionite program can be identified not only in Acts but also in the first two chapters of canonical Luke. Fellows and Associates confirmed Matthews’ arguments with strong red votes.
from
http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects ... ting-2009/
This is one of many attempts by the Acts Seminar to connect 'Acts" with Marcion in order to justfy a dating in the 2nd century. No hard evidence in all cases, just speculations.
Cordially, Bernard
