The Historicity of "Acts"

Paper Summary:

This paper examines how for centuries, the historicity of the "Book of Acts" has been questioned and criticized, prompting historians to label it "the storm center of modern New Testament study." It discusses how many scholars have suggested that the Acts were written as a means of religious propaganda, rendering the work historically unreliable and how others view the "Acts" as a blend of historical facts and unhistorical traditions. It also shows that while the argument continues in present time, the "Book of Acts" has withstood the test of time, holding its ground as an accurate and reliable historical work, particularly as a result of many recent archaeological findings.

From the Paper:

"In Acts, the Ascension takes place in Jerusalem, while in Matthew and Mark it is in Galilee. All the accounts, however, agree that it did take place on a mountain. In Acts the Ascension happens 40 days after the Resurrection, when Jesus appears repeatedly to his followers. In Matthew and Mark, there is no indication of this time period between the Resurrection and the Ascension. Some Gospel writers were not aiming at historical accuracy; they were more concerned with getting the message across. However, Luke took great care to make that his facts were accurate."

More papers on The Historicity of "Acts":

• Analytical Essay # 111088 : "The Book of Acts"
• Analytical Essay # 32640 : "The Gospel of Luke"
• Analytical Essay # 26349 : "Inter-chapters in the "Grapes of Wrath"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: