Home Biblical Worldview Biblical Worldview Is Acts Historically Reliable? A Conversation with Craig Keener
Biblical Worldview

Is Acts Historically Reliable? A Conversation with Craig Keener

36
82
0



How accurate is the book of Acts? In this interview I ask one of the world’s leading scholars on the book of Acts, Craig Keener, to explain why Acts is such a reliable historical document. We discuss his latest one-volume commentary. Join us and ask your (hard) questions!

READ: Acts: New Cambridge Commentary (https://amzn.to/2ZoLBng)

SUBSCRIBE TO THE CHANNEL (https://bit.ly/3fZ9mIw)

*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (https://bit.ly/3LdNqKf)

*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for $100 off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (https://bit.ly/3AzfPFM)

*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (https://bit.ly/448STKK)

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Sean_McDowell
TikTok: @sean_mcdowell
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/seanmcdowell/

source

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]
Post Views: 82
Tags accurateActsApologeticsarchaeologybelievablecommentaryconversationcrediblediscussionevidencehistoricalhistoricitymanuscriptsproofreliablescholartrustworthy
Previous Post
1728574355_maxresdefault.jpg

STR Tactics Book Club: Chapters 4-6

Next Post
1703096911_maxresdefault.jpg

No Government Bailouts for Fiscally Irresponsible States: Heritage’s Romina Boccia on Fox News

Related posts

Leave your comment

36 Comments

  3. Something awesome is happening in Acts 16: 11 Things that could never have been known at the time by anyone except the Alpha and Omega, if you want proof checkout “Truth is Christ” called “What on Earth is going on in Acts” for an amazing deep dive 🙏❤️

  5. At 11 min, i don’t know how he uses luke 21 “when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies” as a reason to date it after 70. It seems an obvious prediction of AD70. The Christians did exactly what Jesus told them to do. They took advantage of a Roman retreat, and fled to the hill country to Pella. Not one perished. Craig would know that.

  6. Keener is great. Awesome interview, Sean. BTW, I recently listed some Gospel elements, facts of Jesus' life, that are present in the speeches in Acts. Jesus was from Nazareth. Acts 10, Acts 22, 26
    He was from David’s lineage. Acts 13
    Jesus was a miracle worker. Acts 10
    He cast out demons and healed everyone. Acts 10
    He was baptized by John. Acts 10
    John denied he was the Christ, and said Jesus was greater than he, Whose sandals he was not fit to untie. Acts 13 This is from John 1.
    The Apostles were His companions and witnesses. Acts 10
    Pontius Pilate wished to release Him. Acts 2
    Pilate and Herod worked together, with the Jews and Gentiles, to crucify Him. Acts 4
    He was the Prophet (like Moses). Acts 3 and 7
    He was betrayed and murdered. Acts 7
    He was crucified Acts 2, hung on a tree. Acts 10, Acts 13
    He was buried in a tomb Acts 13
    He was raised (Acts 2, 13, 17, 26) the Third Day. Acts 10
    He appeared to His witnesses. Acts 10, Acts 13
    He is received back into Heaven, to return again. Acts 3
    Son of Man, sitting at the right hand of God. Acts 7
    The Apostles are commissioned to give witness specifically to His resurrection.
    You receive forgiveness of sins by believing on His name. Acts 10, 13, 26
    This is what is meant by “being saved”. Acts 2.
    And is acquired by faith. Acts 26
    You are baptized into His name.

  10. This is SO UNBELIEVABLY LAUGHABLE! Acts is a ridiculous piece of OBVIOUS fiction! Borrowed ideas from Homeric themes abound, along with contradictions to Paul's authentic writings. Acts was written by whomever the anonymous LUKE was and Luke copied/redacted and added to Mark (not even original lol).

  11. If an ancient author is telling the truth in the checkable details….does that imply "honest author", or does it imply "dishonest author who wanted the readers to think his story rang true"? Or maybe accuracy in the checkable details actually doesn't nudge the scale in favor of either possibility, thus, something more than truth in the details is needed before one can justify drawing the "honest author" conclusion?

    Don't liars realize that the best chance they have at making a lie sound true is to surround it with nuggets of historically accurate detail? Don't smart liars realize that to pile one lie on top of another is to almost certainly guarantee the fraud will be exposed?

    What if I told you that in 1978 during the Carter administration, I levitated without any physical means while I was at a church praying to god for a sign that he would want me to speak out against false forms of Christianity? Does the fact that I got the checkable details right (Carter in 1978) suddenly obligate you to trust that the non-checkable parts (levitation) were also true?

    if not, then why do you automatically leap from "Acts was correct in the checkable details" over to "Acts is correct in the non-checkable details".

  12. The first time I have read Acts, I marveled at the intentiveness of the author. All this fairy tales, miracles, unprobable plot twists, etc. I was a child then. And here you see an adult, even a professor, selling this as history. Faith makes morons out of man.

  15. Dr Craigs testamony really resonated with me , i experienced the holy spirit in a similar way over 20 years ago. coming to God in great confusion and anxiety i experienced a wonderful peace and feeling of unconditional love which is is impossible to forgot. Thanks for all your great videos sean and thankyou craig for your knowledge on the wonderful book of acts.
    God bless you both

  27. I consider Dr. Keener to be one of the best NT scholars out there. The few of his books that I have read from cover to cover have been compelling to me and “keep me honest” as I do not believe that the NT is historically reliable. It’s always important to keep up with what the best on the other side has to say, otherwise, if I’m wrong, I may never know it!

  31. "Although Acts nowhere identifies its author, by the end of the second century it was argued, as Irenaeus (ca. 180 Ce) does, that Luke was the obvious candidate, and that attribution remains conventional today. This identification was based on the reference to a “Luke” in Philemon 24 and in two other letters attributed to Paul (Col 4.14; 2 Tim 4.11), in conjunction with passages in Acts in which the author seems to present himself as a traveling companion of Paul. Irenaeus pointed to these passages (Acts 16.10–17; 20.5–15; 21.1–18; 27.1–28.16), in which the text shifts from third-person to first-person plural narration, as proof that Luke had been Paul’s inseparable collaborator (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.14.1). Many modern scholars challenge the assumption that the “we” passages demonstrate personal familiarity with Paul. In fact, Luke’s larger narrative construction results in a presentation of Paul that is inconsistent with biographical and theological details in Paul’s own letters. For example, Luke’s denying Paul the formal status of “apostle” is almost unimaginable for an actual companion of Paul. In his letters Paul repeatedly claims to be one divinely called to be an apostle (e.g., Rom 1.1; 1 Cor 1.1; Gal 1.1), and he recognizes the existence of other apostles besides the twelve (1 Cor 15.5–7)….Although there is good reason to doubt that the evangelist Luke was a companion of Paul, it is clear that Luke greatly admired Paul and viewed his missionary career as decisive for establishing Christianity in Asia Minor and Greece….According to its opening words, Acts was written after Luke’s Gospel, which scholarly consensus dates to 85–95 Ce (though some arguments have been advanced for an early second-century date). The considerations on the relation between Luke and Paul just reviewed support a late first- or early second-century date. Discrepancies between the undisputed Pauline letters and the narrative about Paul in Acts (including Luke’s restriction of the title “apostle” to the twelve) have long been recognized, and a temporal gap between letters written in the 50s Ce and Acts written forty to fifty years later does much to clarify the situation. At the end of the first century Paul’s image was undergoing revision (as is shown by the Pastoral Epistles; see 1 and 2 Tim; Titus, pp. 1725–44). For example, Luke does not hesitate to portray Paul as subject to Jewish law; this depiction is consistent with Luke’s emphasis on the continuity between the history of Israel and of the church. Moreover, according to Luke it was not Paul’s theological arguments but the conversion of Cornelius through Peter, ratified by the apostolic council (Acts 10.1–11.18), that established that Gentile Christians were not required to observe the law of Moses in its entirety. Such contradictions arise because Acts preserves an image of Paul from a period many decades after his death, and because Luke’s rhetorical presentation addresses new issues for Christians of his day who lived in changed circumstances (e.g., the inclusion of the Gentiles was the major issue for Paul, while for Luke it is the retention of Jewish believers in community with them). Thus Paul’s role in Acts is dictated not primarily by actual biographical details but rather by the needs of Luke’s theology and the social circumstances of his readers." – OAB 5th ed, pp. 1557-1558.