• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
182,369
66,003
Woods
✟5,879,546.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

The Book of Acts does not tell us the full story of early Church history. It provides only partial information.​


The Book of Acts does not tell us the full story of early Church history. It provides only partial information.

This is obvious from the fact that it covers just the period between A.D. 33 and 60, when it suddenly stops (providing us an important clue to when it was written). Even within that time frame, though, it is only a partial record.

For example, the book of Acts tracks the activities of basically three individuals:

  • Peter (chapters 1-6, 9-12)
  • Philip the Evangelist (chapter 8)
  • Paul (chapters 9, 11, 13-28)
This gives us a big clue about who Luke’s main sources were in composing the book—at least for those parts that he didn’t personally witness, which are found in the so-called “we” passages later in the book, where Luke describes what “we” did.

Luke tells us almost nothing of the activities of the other apostles, or of other Christians, and so the book is also incomplete in that way.

It does not even give us a complete record of what its main figures did:

  • Peter vanishes from the narrative after chapter 12, except for a brief reappearance in chapter 15.
  • Philip has only a single chapter devoted to his activities.
  • And, as we will see, Acts does not record many of the activities of Paul.
Some time ago, I did a study of the flow of time in the book of Acts. Periodically, Luke will provide time cues, saying that Paul spent three years in Ephesus (20:31) or that he stayed in Thessalonica for three weeks (17:1-2) or that they sailed from Mitylene and the next day arrived at Chios (20:14-15).

Continued below.
 
Reactions: Wolseley

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
182,369
66,003
Woods
✟5,879,546.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As a Bible chronology geek, I couldn’t resist going through the book of Acts and making a list of all the explicit time cues—as well as providing estimates for the implicit ones (e.g., when Paul goes from one place to another and we can estimate how long it took based on ancient travel times and methods) and the vague ones (e.g., if Luke says Paul spent “many days” somewhere, I might reckon that as a month).

I wanted to add all these up and see if they fit within the chronological framework that the book covers as a whole. Could all of the activities ascribed to Paul have taken place in the years within the book that he was active?

The good news, from an apologetic perspective, is that they did. Acts appears to cover a period of twenty-seven years (A.D. 33 to 60), but my time estimates for the events it mentions came to only thirteen years in total.

That means that there is plenty of room in the twenty-seven years that the book covers for all of the events Luke records—and more! So Luke passes that test as a historian. He does not give us an impossible chronology. But he also does not give us a complete chronology.

We know that the record is incomplete because of the information recorded in Paul’s letters.
 
Upvote 0

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
182,369
66,003
Woods
✟5,879,546.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why didn’t Luke record them? In some cases, he may not have wanted to because he didn’t want to distract the reader from his overall message. For example, if he included Paul’s rebuke of Peter at Antioch, it could have distracted from the fundamental agreement (present both in Acts and Galatians) between Peter and Paul.

In other cases, Luke may not have known about the event. He wasn’t by Paul’s side during the whole time of his ministry. Indeed, the first “we” passage doesn’t occur until Acts 16:10-17, so there was a lot of Paul’s ministry that Luke didn’t witness.

Paul may have recounted some of them to Luke, though, just as he did for the readers of 2 Corinthians. So why wouldn’t Luke include those?

Likely, because they would have been too repetitive for his own readers. Recording five lashings, three beatings with rods, and three shipwrecks before we get to the one in chapter 27 could be seen as overkill.

It also could have taken more space than Luke felt he had available to him if he were going to keep Acts approximately the same length as his Gospel, which was the length of a typical scroll.

Luke thus may have had good reasons for not recording everything that happened to Paul. Still, it would be fascinating to know more.


I take it you thought the author was implying the Bible is lacking. No. It’s a study.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,866
6,532
64
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟355,332.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, Acts is a limited book, true. But it gives an overall picture of what (some) of the Apostles were doing.

But then, the New Testament itself is a limited book----it doesn't contain everything that God wants us to know; it's only half.

Where's the other half? In the Tradition written down by the Apostolic Fathers: Ignatius, Barnabus, Polycarp, Origen, Clement, Papias, Quadratus, Augustine, etc., and in works such as the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle to Diogentus, and many others. These give you the other half of what's called The Deposit, the fullest repository of the revealed truth that God gave to the Church. They are equally divinely inspired, and just as much the Word of God as Holy Scripture is.

Unfortunately, Martin Luther and some of the other so-called "reformers" of the 16th century didn't happen to like what the Apostolic Fathers had to say on certain subjects, so they "excised" them from importance. (Of course, they did the same thing with the Bible, too---they chopped out seven entire books from the Old Testament.) As a result, most lay Christians, and even a lot of Catholics, have never heard of these works, or of the people who wrote them, outside of a list in the Litany of Saints, for example.

Paul himself, in three different places (1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, and 2 Thess. 3:6) exhorts his readers to adhere to Tradition, and not just Scripture only; and the Apostle John, at the end of his Gospel (21:25) freely admits that not everything that Jesus said or did is written down. In Acts 20:35, Paul records a statement Jesus made that isn't found in the Gospels.

So, Holy Scripture is necessary. But if you want to find out what the rest of the Apostles other than Peter, Paul, and Philip did, you need the Apostolic Fathers in the Tradition. Both are vital. Without one or the other, you're only breathing with one lung.
 
Reactions: Michie
Upvote 0

Paul4JC

the Sun of Righteousness will rise with healing
Apr 5, 2020
1,801
1,460
California
✟213,921.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
But then, the New Testament itself is a limited book----it doesn't contain everything that God wants us to know; it's only half.
I disagree. Everything else is water above the glass. I'm not against other writings and read many, but the New Testament (including The Acts of the Apostles) is complete and not limited. It has everything that God wants me to know.

The Teacher searched to find just the right words, and what he wrote was upright and true. 11 The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails--given by one shepherd. 12 Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them. Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body. 13 Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. [Ecc 12:10-13 NIV]
 
Upvote 0

zelosravioli

Believer
Site Supporter
Mar 15, 2014
470
179
Northern California
✟209,208.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I wish Acts had more too, but there are many writings from the first 300 years, you have heard of the Didache, Clement, Origen, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, etc etc right? I have about 20 books on early Church history, thats just up to 300 AD. You do know there are thousands of volumes of Church History since then... right?
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,866
6,532
64
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟355,332.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I disagree. Everything else is water above the glass. I'm not against other writings and read many, but the New Testament (including The Acts of the Apostles) is complete and not limited. It has everything that God wants me to know.
You're not Catholic, so you can disagree if that's your preference. You will, of course, understand that I do not adhere to your viewpoint in this matter.

Protestants base their faith on Scripture alone, with the individual believer being the final authority on interpretation. Catholics base our faith on Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, both with equal importance, and the Church being the final authority on interpretation. So it shouldn't be surprising that we have different viewpoints on the matter.
 
Upvote 0

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Site Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,916
813
✟639,942.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Scripture does not record many dates in general. I think that fact leads us to focus more on the spiritual message.
 
Upvote 0

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
182,369
66,003
Woods
✟5,879,546.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It’s crazy to me how I post a Catholic item in the Catholic forum and those outside the Church feel free to come in and do the usual protesting. If I post outside the Catholic forum, go for it. Otherwise, you all need to read the rules of each forum you post in.
 
Reactions: Wolseley
Upvote 0