QMC
Misc New Testament Books

Acts

Acts is a historical book on the beginnings of the early Christian church. I was taught that this book is an eyewitness account by Luke himself though Acts itself never actually identifies the name of the author. It simply claims that it is written by a traveling companion of Paul. However, there are several key details that don't line up with each other.

For example, we have Paul retelling his conversion experience in Galatians where he says that he stayed away from Jerusalem for 3 years.

Galatians 1:14-20
And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)

However, in Acts we have a different set of events

Acts 9:5-9;19;23-27
And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank....
For some days he was with the disciples at Damascus....
When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.
And when he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples. And they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus.

So in Paul's own words, he stayed away from Jerusalem and instead went into Arabia then back to Demascus and then finally went to Jerusalem after three years. But in Acts, we have Paul immediately heading straight to Jerusalem as soon as he leaves Damascus. And not just that, but in Galatians Paul insists that he did not see any other apostle except Peter(Cephas) and James, but again in Acts we get a different story. There, Paul is claimed to have spent time with all of the apostles.

The differences unfortunately don't end there.

In Acts 17, it mentions Paul converting some of the Jews in Thessalonica, but in 1 Thessalonians he addresses them as having "turned away from their idols." So in one instance, we have Jews, but in the other Pagans.

Only pagans worshiped idols. Paul’s converts in both Thessalonica and Corinth (1 Corinthians 12:2) were former pagans. That is why he calls him-self the “apostle to the gentiles.” There were other missionaries, in particular Peter, who were in charge of taking the message to Jews (Galatians 2:8). The Thessalonian and Corinthian churches were made up of gentiles (Paul), not Jews and gentiles (Acts).

— Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, pg. 58

In another instance Acts recounts Paul's meeting in Jerusalem to discuss the authenticity of his message. Acts describes this as Paul's third visit to Jerusalem, but in Galatians Paul says that it was the second time that he went to Jerusalem.

There are several more examples that can be found and that are mentioned in some of the books that I have cited. Perhaps some of them seem to be minor discrepancies, but the number of them that there are all goes towards the question: how historically reliable is the book of Acts? If the author of Acts isn't lining up with the details being explained by Paul himself, then was the author actually there? Or did the author simply do poor job of relaying Paul's timeline? If he simply did a poor job, then how can we trust the rest of the story's details? We don't have letters from Peter or other apostles to cross-verify the details. So how do we determine what is factual and what isn't?

Hebrews

We don't know who wrote Hebrews. Hebrews never states who is writing it. We also don't know when Hebrews was written. An odd point in Hebrews is that it never references anything in the Gospels. It also never references the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem that happened around 70 AD, and in Hebrews 10:1-4, the author makes an argument against temple sacrifices being a worthwhile thing. If the temple had been destroyed at the time of Hebrews' writing, then there wouldn't be any sacrifices and the argument that the author is making would be pointless.

So this book is actually one of the earlier writings, sometime around 40-60 AD. So it not only predates the Gospels, it also doesn't seem to have any knowledge of any sayings of Jesus or any of the parables.

Why do we trust a book whose authorship we don't know? Why doesn't the author of Hebrews know anything about Jesus' ministry? Why doesn't the author know any common sayings of Jesus or any of the parables? If the stories presented in the Gospels were passed down through oral tradition, then wouldn't the author be intimately familiar with them?

source: On the Historicity of Jesus, Pg. 622-623

James, 1 2 3 John, Jude

I don't want to continually belabor the same points, but scholars for similar reasons to other books also agree that these books are also written late. James is the only book that could possibly be dated to the late 60's at the earliest, but it is generally held that these books are all late first century (90 - 110).

Why do we have books that were written nearly 50 years after Paul's writings? This is almost an entire generation removed from the apostles themselves. So what authority are we listening to when we say that these books have the authority of God behind them? Who decided that these books should be in the NT and why?

← Errors →