Reasons For Not Accepting Acts As A Historical Record

1534 Words Feb 11th, 2016 7 Pages
“Consider Paul, and you will see that our being mortal brings us the greatest benefits” (Chrysostom, NCE p216). Mortality means being subject to death, and this is a result of the human race not being perfect; not being consistent. When observing ancient accounts of what occurred, it is necessary to remember the mortality of all people, and the inevitable debates that will arise over discrepancies in different sources citing the same instance. Paul of Tarsus is a man who’s life is highly debated, I, however, would argue that though Paul was once a Jewish leader, he experienced a conversion and helped start the new Jesus movement. He then preached what he believed about Jesus to anyone, despite much controversy. In order to dive into these arguments, it is important to address the validity of sources used. One source I will be using is the book of Acts. According to Richard Pervo in The Making of Paul, there are many reasons for not accepting Acts as a historical record. He suggests reasons such as the “proclivity toward symmetry” and the “reliance upon stereotyped scenes” are good enough to invalidate the source (p150). I am willing to argue against that because I believe that it makes sense that some events in people’s lives are symmetrical. Yes, Jesus and Paul had to meet with the same leader figures when being prosecuted, but perhaps that is because of how their justice system worked. Many leaders of any movement face the same issues across the board. They will face the…
Open Document