Westar finally releases Acts Seminar Report

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Conclusion is that it's 2nd Century and virtually pure fiction

The dominant view in Acts scholarship places Acts around 85 CE, not because of any special event linking the book of Acts to that date but as a compromise between scholars who believe it was written by an eye-witness to the early Jesus movement and those who don’t. Acts and Christian Beginnings argues for a more rigorous approach to the evidence. The Acts Seminar concluded that Acts was written around 115 CE and used literary models like Homer for inspiration, even exact words and phrases from popular stories. “Among the top ten accomplishments of the Acts Seminar was the formation of a new methodology for Acts,” editors Dennis Smith and Joseph Tyson explained. “The author of Acts is in complete control of his material. He felt no obligation to stick to the sources. He makes them say what he wants them to say.”

The Acts Seminar demonstrated that the author of Acts used a collection of Paul’s letters to create a believable itinerary for Paul’s journeys throughout the Mediterranean. Previously, scholars saw the correspondence between Paul’s letters and Acts as proof that they were written in the same era. In fact, the reverse is true. Acts used Paul’s letters as a source while shying away from Pauline theology, which lost popularity in the second century.

“It’s tempting to ask, why bother reading a book we can demonstrate is not historically what it claims to be?” Tyson said. Yet Acts remains important as a window into the world of early second-century Christianity. Acts succeeded in creating a “charter myth,” a narrative constitution for the young Jesus movement. “Acts offered a major reinterpretation of Paul so powerful it hasn’t been undone until this century,” Tyson explained. “Narrative is so powerful, so effective,” Smith added. “Luke benefits from following this model. It’s good storytelling.

Hard to find anything to complain about at first glance. Sounds pretty spot on to me. I just downloaded it onto my Kindle. I'll read it and review it.

[stephan happy huller]

Here, here for Tyson

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Couple tidbits from the introduction:

Acts cannot be classified as an independent corroboration for Paul. Its only source for information about Paul is Paul's letters. The rest is invention from other Classical sources (named so far are LXX, Homer, Josephus and Vergil - no surprises there).

The Christian story did not begin in Jerusalem, but with the Pentecost. I need to read more about this, but at face value, that sounds a hell of a lot like what Carrier says.

I do like the tone, I have to say. Not so much of the pandering to Christian sensibilities. I haven't read much, but initially it strikes me as much better done than the Acts of Jesus book.

[spin]

I certainly don't like the tone of the review writer on Amazon, E.M. Cooper, who starts of with saying the book is appalling. Cooper points out the blunder where Tiberius was stated when Claudius was needed. Most of us make the occasional brain fart and in the old days the publisher would pick up on such things, but publishers are not what they used to be. The rest of the review is nonsense, but it was written a fortnight before the official release, so it is unlikely Cooper paid for it.

I hope, if you get something positive out of the book, that you leave an Amazon review.

[hjalti]

Here, here for Tyson

*Hear, hear.... [/grammar police]

[hjalti]

Apparently this Cooper thinks that "7Q6.2 is a fragment of papyrus containing Acts 27:38". I think it's safe to ignore him and focus on the book itself.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I certainly don't like the tone of the review writer on Amazon, E.M. Cooper, who starts of with saying the book is appalling. Cooper points out the blunder where Tiberius was stated when Claudius was needed. Most of us make the occasional brain fart and in the old days the publisher would pick up on such things, but publishers are not what they used to be. The rest of the review is nonsense, but it was written a fortnight before the official release, so it is unlikely Cooper paid for it.

I hope, if you get something positive out of the book, that you leave an Amazon review.

Sure I will. That Amazon reviewer is a clown.

Pervo himself has a response to that review in the comments for it:

Richard I. Pervo says:

Tiberius was an error that should have been caught. ancients had shorthand but shorthand reporters did not record speeches outside of some judicial proceedings. the idea that early followers of Jesus could have afforded or wished to hire shorthand reporters to record what Peter et al. said is absurd. Moreland is correct--granted that this is an inference, albeit scarcely contested.
all books have errors. the notion that two or three could invalidate an argument is methodologically fallacious. This reviewer should get a gold star for promptness, as the book was published on 24 October. In any case Fox News should take him on. it would be a perfect fit.

Claudius' first name actually was Tiberius, so I guess that's what caused the mistake. It looks like somebody was hoping to find a single error that they could use to invalidate the whole report.

[hjalti]

Couple tidbits from the introduction: ...

The Christian story did not begin in Jerusalem, but with the Pentecost. I need to read more about this, but at face value, that sounds a hell of a lot like what Carrier says.

Nope. They say that it didn't start with Pentecost (that's after all a foundational myth in Acts, and Pentecost was supposedly in Jerusalem! ).

[hjalti]

Point #10 in the introduction in interesting:

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.

One is tempted to replace "Acts" with "Mt/Mk/Lk/Jh"

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Point #10 in the introduction in interesting:

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.

One is tempted to replace "Acts" with "Mt/Mk/Lk/Jh"

Yeah, why wasn't this the presumption all along? If you apply that nonsensical "innocent until proven guilty" criterion to Homer or Gilgamesh it immediately becomes ridiculous. Why the special privilege for the Bible?