Martyn on Historical Methods (Galatians)
I’m doing a run through J. Louis Martyn’s commentary on Galatians (Anchor Bible)
Convincing attempts to present a chronology of Paul’s travels and labors are based on a simple rule: Our first and decisive attempt to discern the chronology of Paul’s work is to be made on the basis of the letters alone. As a second and separable step, we may turn to Acts. Even in that second step, however, one accepts from Acts only points of confirmation and supportive elucidation. . . . — p. 17
This is a key dividing point in Biblical studies generally between those who accept Biblical inerrancy, particularly in his stronger forms, and those who do not. If one believes the Bible is in all cases historically inerrant, one will tend to accept all Biblical sources equally, though with due consideration to perspective. One might even tend more readily to accept Acts as the better historical source, seeing as it was ostensibly written with the intent of presenting a historical account. (In fact, Acts was more written with an apologetic intent, but that is another issue.)
If we look at Biblical texts from a historian’s point of view, we will take a different approach. In that case, a document written by one of the primary characters is a primary source of information, while a history written by someone else, based on such sources, even though he presumably had access to witnesses and to better documentation that we have today, is still a secondary source. Your first and best option is what you can learn from the primary sources.
In taking such a historical view, however, one needn’t be quite as pessimistic about the historicity of Acts as Martyn appears to be, by accepting only “points of confirmation and supportive elucidation.” Acts must be itself evaluated as an historical source, and it appears to me that Martyn himself gives it a fairly substantial role in areas other than chronology in the rest of his commentary.
Whichever side of this divide you are in terms of approach to studying the Bible as history, you need to be aware of the divide, because it will color debates, especially in online forums and the blogosphere where a large number of different viewpoints clash quickly. Understanding the methodology behind such choices is important. If two people are not in agreement on the weight to be given the various sources, they are unlikely to come to the same conclusions about any particular historical event.
An interesting example of a later connection between the story in Acts and that in the Pauline letters comes in relation to Acts 15 and the Jerusalem conference. It is interesting to note that Paul’s accusation against the teachers, that they were “troubling” (Galatians 1:7) uses the same Greek word as does Acts 15:24 in describing what certain people had been doing in the gentile churches. Is it possible that Paul is specifically referring to the decree of that conference? A combination of texts from Galatians could be used to gather a more precise idea of the nature of that Jerusalem meeting. (Note that while the connection is mentioned, Martyn does not bring up the issue of historicity in connection with these two verses.)
Interesting post. But it is wrong to suggest, even if we take the historian’s approach, that Acts is all based on sources and so less reliable than Paul’s letters. Significant parts of Acts are presented in the first person plural and so are ostensibly eye witness accounts. Of course historians needs to judge whether this might be deceptive, as they must with the attributions of Paul’s letters. But if they judge Acts as presented without deceptive intent, although allowing that sources may have been misunderstood, they should accept the “we” parts of Acts as being as reliable for chronology as Paul’s letters.
Peter, I agree with you on the “we passages” in Acts. I also think that most explanations for the ending are not nearly as good as the possibility that it was written at that point in history.
Further reading in Martyn’s commentary on Galatians would suggest that he doesn’t view it that way. In fact he routinely downplays the historical value of Acts and relies almost exclusively on the letters. He doesn’t completely exclude Acts, but it does not play anything like a primary role.