Thank you for the question on historian’s view of the Apostle Paul, “I see that many scholars no longer regard Acts as history. How does this change our view of St. Paul?”
This is no surprise at all for there are many historians and theologians who do not believe that Moses, David, or even Jesus existed. Thus it would be reasonable for them to conclude that most of the Old Testament including the New Testament are non historical. For them to conclude that the Apostle Paul lived and that Acts is history, that would contradict their premise that Jesus lived!
Here are some thoughts for one’s consideration as my view hasn’t changed about Acts and the Apostle Paul:
A. The validity/historicity of Scripture is not fundamentally based on modern scholars affirmation of it, but on the character of God himself.
I believe that many scholars including historians has already concluded that God doesn’t exist or if he does exist that he is not transcended from the affairs of this world. Cosmologist and philosophers have already concluded that the Universe is a closed system. If that is their viewpoint, then God can’t exist!
The Scriptures provides an alternative view that God does exist and that the Universe is not a closed system otherwise how could God know the number of hairs on our head or knows when a person sits up or sits down.
The Scripture declares that all Scripture is God-breathed and the writing of it was superintendent/guided by the Holy Spirit (II Tim. 3:16–17). God declares that he is holy, righteous and truthful. God can’t lie. Thus the reader of the Bible must decided who is speaking the truth: God or man.
I John 5 says this, “We accept human testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10 Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life” (NIV).
B. The historicity of Acts and Paul.
As a brief summary, Wikipedia says this why scholars reject Acts as history: “Archaeological inscriptions and other independent sources show that Acts contains some accurate details of 1st century society with regard to the titles of officials, administrative divisions, town assemblies, and rules of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. However, the historicity of the depiction of Paul the Apostle in Acts is contested. Acts describes Paul differently from how Paul describes himself, both factually and theologically.[1] Acts differs with Paul’s letters on important issues, such as the Law, Paul’s own apostleship, and his relation to the Jerusalem church.[1] Scholars generally prefer Paul’s account over that in Acts.[2]: 316 [3]: 10 .
Acts describes Saul as a strict Pharisees and Saul who adopted his Greek name of Paul affirms his roots in Philippians and the subsequent transformation in his life.
Philippians 3 says this of his former life: “If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.
7 But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in[a] Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. 10 I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead” (NIV).
The Jerusalem Letter by the Apostles in Acts 15 is consistent with Paul’s message in the Epistle that Jews nor Gentiles are under the Mosaic Law. There would be no reason why Paul would confront Peter in Galatians 2:11–21 if his message was of the Pharisees.
Here is an imperfect analogy if a person who lived and wrote under the regime of North Korea and comes to the United States or to Europe, would his writing be the same if he thought that democracy was a better way of life than Communism? In some manner, it was like that for Saul who lived under the rules of Pharisees and found freedom in Christ from the Law.
Did the Gospel spread throughout the Roman empire in the first century? The Good News was to spread from Jerusalem, to Judea and Samaria, and then to the world. (Matt. 28:19–20). The Apostles including Paul and his companions brought the message of Jesus to the Roman world.
C. The spread of the Christian faith in the Roman Empire.
The 12 Apostles as far as the biblical record did not significant impacted the region beyond Israel. Most of the Apostles stayed in Jerusalem during the Jewish persecution until the Fall of Jerusalem, if they had not die before then. The message of the Christian would have found favor with the common household servants and citizens of a heavenly kingdom that awaited them. The numbers of Christians are uncertain.
How many Jews came and hear John the Baptist? How large were the crowds who came to hear Jesus? How many Jews and Jewish converts were on the Day of Pentecost?
If the biblical record is accurate, and I believe that it is, that 5000 men came and heard Jesus beside women and children. During the Day of Pentecost, Acts 2:41 records that 3000 people believed and were baptized that day (Acts 2;41). During the Jewish persecution and destruction of Rome, those Christians Jews would have fled to neighboring cities and countries. Acts stated that Paul and his companions established house churches with leaders. The center of the Christian faith spread from Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Rome, Alexandria, and even to Constantinople. One is left wondering who is the primary person or persons who caused the message of the Jesus to be spread throughout the Roman Empire? It had to be someone. Acts states that it was primary Paul to the Gentiles and the Apostles to the Jews.
D. The absent record of Josephus on the Christians.
Josephus, the Jewish historians, does not mention the Apostle Paul in his writings. No one knows the reason why Josephus doesn’t mention the Christians. Thus here is my conjecture.
- General Titus destroyed the Temple in 70 CE. Josephus was seeking to win the favor of the Emperor for the Jews. His focus was the restoration of the Jews and highlighting the goodness of the Jewish people.
- The Jews persecuted a heretical group who called themselves “little Christ.” Josephus had no reason to focus on a heretical group.
- Pilate, representing the Roman government, condemned the Christ as a seditionist. Josephus had not reason to record that the Jews had a part in the death of the Christ or to infuriate Rome for condemning an innocent man.
- It may be reasonable that Nero had to blame someone for the fire in Rome. Pilate had condemned the “Christ” and it may be a convenient way for him to deflect the blame on the followers of this seditious group. Christians would not swear allegiance to Caesar or to Rome, a treasonous act, nor worship the Greek-Roman’s gods/goddess.
Finally, there are some historical records that dates between the 1s and 2nd CE. The Didache is dated to 50–70 CE while others to the 4th/5th century. The importance is that the Christians had grown sufficiently in number that the church leaders developed a manual for believers. The Muratorian Canon dating to 170 CE, lists “The Acts of All the Apostles, 13 Epistles of Paul along with other books. The Muratorian Canon is the first surviving list of New Testaments books which would mean that the Christians already had New Testaments books that they considered as Scripture. To discount Acts or the Apostle Paul would also discount the writings of the early Church Fathers. Paul left no personal footprint by naming churches after himself. The scrolls of Paul’s writing is what he left for the churches who asked him questions or that he wanted to encourage believers.
For scholars to accept Acts as historical would mean that they would have to accept the message by Paul of Jesus. They have already denied Jesus existence so why would they accept Acts or any of Paul’s writings as authentic.
SUMMARY: The debate is not Acts itself, but the Apostle Paul himself.
For further insight and discussion: