The Seminar on Acts of the Apostles sat for ten years until 2011, examining the Acts of the Apostles. What were its main findings and how were they arrived at?

  • 2
    Is this on topic?
    – user20766
    Aug 15 '16 at 5:01
  • Mod notice: ‹some comments removed› Please keep discussion about the topicality of this post on the relevant meta post. Splitting the discussion between there and comments isn't helping.
    – Caleb
    Aug 16 '16 at 5:27

The Acts Seminar was one of several seminars set up by The Westar Institute as "large-scale, collaborative research projects" on various topics in early Christian history. Fellows attending and voting at the Seminars are academics in theology, Bible studies and cognate fields. The voting system was based on traditional scholarly practice, whereby each member of the Seminar assigned a colour to his or her response to a question after full discussion, as described by the institute's Wikipedia page:

  • RED: This information is virtually certain; it is supported by a preponderance of the evidence and is accepted as historical.
  • PINK: This information is not certain but is probably reliable; it fits well with evidence that is verifiable and so is regarded as borderline historical.
  • GRAY: This information is possible but unreliable; it is not a clear fabrication but lacks supporting evidence and so is regarded as dubious.
  • BLACK: This information is improbable; it does not fit verifiable evidence or seems to be a fabrication and is regarded as nonhistorical.

As described by the Seminar summary report, the goal was to go through the canonical Acts of the Apostles from beginning to end and evaluate it for historical accuracy. The Seminar announced that its principal findings were:

  1. The use of Acts as a source for history has long needed critical reassessment.
  2. Acts was written in the early decades of the second century.
  3. The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.
  4. Except for the letters of Paul, no other historically reliable source can be identified for Acts.
  5. Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life and mission of Paul.
  6. Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity.
  7. Acts constructs its story on the model of epic and related literature.
  8. The author of Acts created names for characters as storytelling devices.
  9. Acts constructs its story to fit ideological goals.
  10. Acts is a primary historical source for second century Christianity.

"The Seminar has not found a core historical story of Christian beginnings in Acts", which is "not to say that Acts is totally unhistorical but to observe that it is less helpful in the historical reconstruction of Christian beginnings than previously assumed."

The full report of the Seminar is published as Acts and Christian Beginnings: The Acts Seminar Report (Polebridge Press, 2013), edited by Dennis E. Smith, Joseph B. Tyson.

  • 1
    Did they address whether the author claimed to be a companion of Paul or not? (The "we" passages are often cited as evidence, but I've seen arguments that they don't actually mean that.) Do they regard it as the work of a single author/redactor? If so, is it the same person as the Gospel of Luke? Regarding 6, what did they say was the birthplace of Christianity? Aug 15 '16 at 0:13
  • 1
    @Mr.Bultitude I will be ordering a copy of the final report and when I have received and read this I will be able to answer these questions. Sorry I can't do so just yet. Aug 15 '16 at 1:33
  • 5
    50% of this post is copy and paste from the seminar's site with no indication that it isn't your own material. That's not okay — and this is something we've pointed out before on your posts. Copy & pasting any content and posting it with your name under it and no credits or formatting to indicate a citation is plagiarism. Don't do that.
    – Caleb
    Aug 15 '16 at 12:14
  • Another question, regarding number 3: which of the Pauline epistles are considered to have been used as sources? Did it include the Pastorals? What about Hebrews? Oct 25 '16 at 19:27
  • Hi @Mr.Bultitude That's an interesting question, too much to answer in a short comment. If you could ask it as a question in its own right, I'll try to do it justice. Please state whether you want the view of the Acts Seminar or of scholars more broadly. Oct 25 '16 at 19:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.