Book of Acts History or Theology

Christian Holy Bible known as Acts, many people who read Acts may feel or be inclined to believe that it is a book of historical record and fact. However, there are many theologians and scholars that do not look at the book this way and this report shall look at the work of Powell and Boring when it comes to this fact. There are many in the Christian faith that assert that the Holy Bible should be taken "as is" in terms of what it says and so forth but there are others that put forth a great amount of caution when it comes to this idea and they have specific examples when it comes to the same. While many Christians may be inclined to take the book of Acts at its word, there are many reasons why this is less than wise. Analysis
Straight off the top, Powell is quick to say that Luke, the author of Acts, never intended to portray or write the Book of Acts as history. Rather, there are scholars like Richard Pervo that suggest that the primary intention of the book is to "entertain and to edify." However, there are many other scholars that assert that Luke absolutely wants to be taken seriously as a historian. When it comes to the latter, there are various verses such as in Luke 1 and Acts I that given the notion that Luke is trying to act as if everything in those books is to be taken as historical fact rather than entertainment or some other form of writing. However, Powell is quick to point out that "Acts is not a work of history in the modern sense" (Powell, 1991). Indeed, Powell is quick to point out that Luke does not identify the sources of the material that he prints and he maintains a critical distance from the subject matter that is being stated. If indeed Luke's intent was to use sources to prove that what he was saying was legitimate and absolute fact, he did not do a very good job of doing so. However, roughly two thousand years have passed since the time period that the book pertains to and there are, by extension, some honest questions that have to be asked about how this matters. Indeed, what stood as "history" back then may be different (if not a lot different) than what would be normal nowadays. Going a bit further, there is the exploration of what "standards" were in place at the time. Two examples pointed to when it comes to those standards were the Dionysius of Halicarnassus and an essay by Lucian of Samosate. For his part Dionysius says that the characters portrayed in historical texts should be given a "lofty status." Even so, both of the authors just mentioned were very specific when it came to how historical works and texts should be structured and portrayed. For example, both assert that information that is not central to the story should not be included. Indeed, they note that material should be written with "rapidity" rather than dallying with details that are not mundane to the recitation that is being levied towards the reader (Powell).

As far as how Acts is portrayed and written, there are indeed some things and details in Acts that are "unparalleled. In other words, this would mean that there is material that is neither confirmed nor contradicted by other material. Indeed, a lot of the incidental material about people like Matthias, Aeneas, Tabitha, Agabus, Rhoda and so forth are all examples of this. However, the hugest example of unparalleled materials has to be that about Saul/Paul. His transformation being a rather evil man to a man of Christ throughout the Bible is a very pivotal part of the book and a lot of the verbiage about him is not disproven in the Bible or any other literature about the same. Beyond that, there is a lot of material in the Bible that is indeed confirmed by other sources. While noting that the book of Acts is a "propaganda narrative," historian Adrian Sherwin-White admits that there are a lot of matters and details in the Book of Acts that are seemingly true when comparing and contrasting to the words and details found in historical texts outside of the Bible. For example, the identities given for the Chief Magistrates as being "praetors" and that they are attended by "lictors," is absolutely correct based on what is otherwise known (Powell, 1991). As noted earlier in this report, Luke wrote his own gospel in addition to writing Acts, so it would be relevant to look at both books when it comes to assessing the scholarship and accuracy of what Luke is writing. Indeed, Luke has much the same advocates and detractors when it comes to the veracity and quality of what is written by Luke. Powell gets to the point, so to speak, about Luke when he says that "though it is appropriate today to think of Luke as a historian, theologian and literature artists, it must be noted that the middle term predominates" (Powell). Indeed, Powell is rather emphatic when he says that Luke is much more of a theologian as compared to being a simple historian. Powell notes that very few people would argue that Luke was not a theologian. It is rather clear that he was. However, there are many people that are experts in the history of Biblical times that assert that Luke's work cannot be taken as historical and literal accounts of what really happened in the time of Jesus simply because there are entirely too many historical standards of quality not followed and/or there is evidence elsewhere in the historical record that undermine or contradict what is widely known or accepted. Even so, the amount of source material and so forth bear out that even though many people will suggest that Luke was not a historian in the traditional sense, there are still many people that actively discuss and debate the subject to the significant amount of unsettled questions that exist in relation to this topic (Powell).

When it comes to the subject that permeates this report and the work of Powell, there is another author that has a great amount of opinion on the subject and that would be M. Eugene Boring and his work about the New Testament. Indeed, Boring is also rather direct when it comes to his words about Luke and the continuity (or lack thereof) when it comes to the book of Acts. Indeed, he notes that "Luke is sparing, vague and confused in the chronological data offered by Acts." He notes that there are indeed some correlations between what Luke says in Acts and what is known through other historical record. However, Boring also says these connections are either "chronologically vague" or they are non-existent. Examples of the former include a reference to the reign of Claudius in chapter 11. Examples of the latter would include references to Herod, Gallio, Festus and Felix. Boring notes that even the general perspective offered by the writer of Acts is a bit antithetical to that of a historical narrative. As noted by Boring, he says that "the narrator of Luke/Acts is omniscient and omnipresent" and he deigns to report what happened in private. This would include the private conversations of people like Fesus and Agrippa in the fifth chapter of Acts and so forth. Rather than offering an account or summary of such conversations, there is the inference of direct quotes and the actual conversation that took place. Boring notes that Luke's modus operandi is "showing rather than telling." Even with all of that, the book is "well written" in that the perceived selectivity and choice of recitation goes unnoticed by a casual reader. It is no small thing, however, to realize that roughly a third of Acts pertains to speeches that are directly written down and recited in the book rather than simply being summarized with brevity and paraphrasing. This is indicative of someone that was truly within many people's inner circles. However, many people are dubious that this is true and Boring is quick to say this (Boring). Conclusion
Throughout society today, there are many evangelists that are quick to say that the Word of God should be taken as is and without any changes or alterations. However, there are many historians and even many theologians that cast doubt on this due to the unproven or disproven items, at least that is the perception of many, that are present in Luke, Acts and other books of the Bible. There is a chance that further study and review of history will bear out new facts.

Works Cited

Boring, M. Eugene. An Introduction To The New Testament. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012. Print.

Powell, Mark Allan. What Are They Saying About Acts?. New York: Paulist Press, 1991. Print.

Powell, Mark Allan. What Are They Saying About Luke?. New York: Paulist Press, 1989. Print.