Quote:What you're saying is that part of Acts can be shown to be incorrect - yes I agree there. Parts of all four gospels can be shown to be incorrect historically as well. But that doesn't mean everything is incorrect. You know very well that the works of all ancient historians of the time contain numerous errors, and the Christian texts are no exception. Errors are a good thing though, at least for sceptics, because they show that the author was making an attempt to represent history.
Acts, like Paul and Thecla, and many of the early martyrdom stores, bears more resemblance to Greek romances of the time. But where do you draw the line? Oh, it mentions Antioch.
So what? Gone With The Wind mentions Atlanta. The fact that Atlanta is a real city does not make Gone With The Wind less of a novel. When you fall into the some of it must be true routine you run the risk of picking what you'd like to be true and asserting that it is.
I would dispute that the word "error" even applies. When Livy writes of the deliberations of the Carthaginian Senate after the Roman commission departed it is pure literary invention. When he discusses the speech which Fabius Maximus gave to the senate it is an invention: There were no stenographers in Ancient Rome taking down Fabius' words as he spoke. Livy is using the fiction of a speech to convey what he saw as the main issue of the day. Similarly, when jesus is prattling on in Gethsemane who is writing down his words? The books tell us that the apostles were asleep. It is a speech. A common literary device of ancient writers but certainly not one to be taken seriously.
Then there is the propaganda aspects of ancient writing. Caesar says that 250,000 Gauls came to relieve Alesia. That is a preposterous number. Herodotus claimed that over a million Persians invaded Greece? That is an even more preposterous number! But it was meant to show the greatness of the victory that such odds were overcome. Error? No. Bullshit is the word you want.
