What do you think?
Rate this book
The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History
The Acts of the Apostles is the New Testament book that contains the most obvious ties to its cultural and historical milieu. Yet, until very recently, the trend has been for 20th-century authors to bypass discussion of the relation of Acts to the world and history around it. In this book, Colin Hemer examines various strands of interlocking data, ranging from the epistles of Paul to records of the corn fleet that sailed from Alexandria. The wealth of new literary, epigraphic, and papyrological data brings fresh light to numerous details as well as to the central question of Luke’s conception of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem. The result is a broader understanding of the Hellenistic world in general and a greater appreciation for Acts as a coherent and consistent product of its day. Originally published by J. C. B. Mohr in 1989.
482 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1989
5 people are currently reading
196 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
May 24, 2021
Is The Acts of the Apostles a source of authentic historical information about earliest Christianity?
Colin J. Hemer answers that question affirmatively in The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, published after his untimely 1987 death and edited by his friend and colleague, Conrad H. Gempf. Hemer’s argument is oblique, cumulative, and plausible. And although Hemer was an evangelical Christian, his argument approaches the topic empirically rather than confessionally.
Chapter 1 focuses on the history of the question of Acts’ historicity. Hemer wrote in the 1980s, near the end of a mid-twentieth-century period during which New Testament scholars (often German) emphasized the theology of Luke-Acts over (and often at the expense of) its historicity. Some claimed that “Luke”—not identified with the doctor-companion of the apostle Paul—invented his “history” of earliest Christianity to promulgate a theology by turns competitive with and contradictory of authentic Paulinism, among other historical errors. Pressed too far, such scholarship made any reconstruction of earliest Christianity fraught, if not entirely impossible.
Hemer notes how different the mid-twentieth-century status questionis was from the one that obtained prior to World War I. Then, both German and British scholarship seemed more open to the idea that Acts contained authentic historical information, though there were numerous disagreements over particular passages. “The discontinuities of the war generation have broken the sequence of discussion without obviating the need for fundamental re-examination of the accumulation of hidden and suspect presuppositions,” Hemer writes. “The question of Acts’ relationship to the history which it purports to relate is too important and fundamental not to be re-opened” (29).
Chapter 2 turns to “preliminary questions” such as the narrative unity of Luke-Acts, its genre, the meaning of historicity, how to measure historicity, textual variants within Acts, and extrabiblical sources that might throw light on the book. “It is possible to judge the work of an ancient writer from an unrealistic expectation by laying down criteria for acceptance which are too literalistically rigorous,” Hemer writes (43). Instead of doing that, he offers “a tabulation of guidelines to what seem to be the reasonable expectations of historicity in a writing like Acts” (46). Having tabulated those guidelines, he defends a contextual approach to the topic, explaining, “It is often through small and incidental points of fact that a text may be checked against its context, though we must be very careful about the conclusions drawn from such details” (53).
Chapter 3 turns to the question of whether ancient historiographers intended to communicate accurate historical information. Hemer demonstrates that ancient historians did strive for accuracy and outlined methods for rooting their accounts in what actually happened, though with qualifications and imperfections. Whether Luke is such an historian can neither be ruled out nor in without a patient examination of the “small and incidental points of fact” mentioned earlier, among other empirical data.
Hemer examines those facts in chapter 4 (“Types of Knowledge Displayed in Acts”), chapter 5 (“Evidence from Historical Details in Acts”), and an excursus (“Names and Titles in Acts”). The argument he presents in these sections is oblique rather than direct, and cumulatively forceful rather than individually dispositive. In other words, what he demonstrates is that Luke’s account of people, places, events, and vocabulary is broadly consistent with what is known from other sources regarding the context in that time and place, though not necessarily the exact event Luke reports. The patient accumulation of these “small and incidental points of fact” increasingly leaves readers with impression that Acts is historically plausible, which entails that its invention of events whole cloth is historically implausible. Hemer does not claim that these facts prove Luke’s account tout court, nor that they dispose of all historical difficulties in the book. And yet, they effectively remove reasonable doubt that Luke intended to present what actually happened. A wholly contrived report would not get so many details right across so many domains.
Chapters 6 and 7 turn to the main historical criticisms lodged by New Testament scholars against the historicity of Acts. These fall into two categories: (1) alleged theological disparities between Luke’s theology and Paul’s, disparities that scholars allege are difficult to explain if Luke were a faithful companion of Paul; and (2) chronological difficulties between Galatians and Acts on the topic of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem.
Hemer responds to the theological objection by arguing two points: “(1) These apparent conflicts are all matters open to explanation as deriving from different perspectives and contexts. … (2) The essential unity of the New Testament witness must be seen as capable of comprising a considerable degree of internal diversity without this diversity being seen as necessarily problematic as it seems to some” (247).
Hemer’s response to the chronological objection involves identifying “the visit of Acts 9 with that of Gal. 1, and the visit of Acts 11 with that of Gal. 2, the Council [of Jerusalem] visit of Acts 15 not being mentioned because it had not taken place by the time of the writing of Galatians (which on this hypothesis is the earliest of Paul’s epistles)” (247). A crucial objection to this reconstruction of Paul’s itinerary is the belief that references to “Galatia” and the “Galatians” cannot refer to cities visited on Paul’s first missionary journey,” since those cities were not ethnically Galatian (Galatian = Celtic). Rather than understanding “Galatia” and “Galatian” in an ethnic sense, Hemer presents inscriptional evidence that demonstrates a provincial understanding of the terms. Where the ethnic sense of the terms would point to what scholars call the “North Galatian” interpretation, Hemer’s provincial sense of the terms is consistent with a “South Galatian” interpretation.
Chapters 8 and 9 conclude the book with an examination of the authorship, sources, and dating of Acts. Hemer defends the traditional ascription of the Gospel and Acts to Luke, the Gentile convert and doctor-companion of Paul. He argues that Luke wrote Acts based on eyewitness sources whom he interviewed, access to Paul and his companions, and his own participation in the so-called “‘we’ passages” in the second half of Acts. He dates the publication of Acts to A.D. 62, at a time when Paul’s appeal to Caesar Nero in Rome is fast approaching. Hemer’s dating of Acts is probably more controversial than his identification of its author. The majority of contemporary scholars date Luke-Acts post-A.D. 70, with a date in the early 80s being the most common. There are a variety of reasons for this, a major one being the notion that Mark was one of Luke’s sources, and an A.D. 62 date is too early for Mark, let alone Luke.
Obviously, the truth of a matter does not depend on counting the noses of scholars. Hemer pushes back on the notion that a pre-A.D. 70 date for Acts is impossible simply by noting the leading New Testament scholars in the last two centuries—both conservative and liberal—who have affirmed an early date for its writing. Most importantly, he argues that such a date best explains features of the book, such as earliest Christianity’s conflicts with Sadducees, occasional alliance with Pharisees, generally positive portrayal of Roman officials, and the unresolved ending of the book.
Colin J. Hemer answers that question affirmatively in The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, published after his untimely 1987 death and edited by his friend and colleague, Conrad H. Gempf. Hemer’s argument is oblique, cumulative, and plausible. And although Hemer was an evangelical Christian, his argument approaches the topic empirically rather than confessionally.
Chapter 1 focuses on the history of the question of Acts’ historicity. Hemer wrote in the 1980s, near the end of a mid-twentieth-century period during which New Testament scholars (often German) emphasized the theology of Luke-Acts over (and often at the expense of) its historicity. Some claimed that “Luke”—not identified with the doctor-companion of the apostle Paul—invented his “history” of earliest Christianity to promulgate a theology by turns competitive with and contradictory of authentic Paulinism, among other historical errors. Pressed too far, such scholarship made any reconstruction of earliest Christianity fraught, if not entirely impossible.
Hemer notes how different the mid-twentieth-century status questionis was from the one that obtained prior to World War I. Then, both German and British scholarship seemed more open to the idea that Acts contained authentic historical information, though there were numerous disagreements over particular passages. “The discontinuities of the war generation have broken the sequence of discussion without obviating the need for fundamental re-examination of the accumulation of hidden and suspect presuppositions,” Hemer writes. “The question of Acts’ relationship to the history which it purports to relate is too important and fundamental not to be re-opened” (29).
Chapter 2 turns to “preliminary questions” such as the narrative unity of Luke-Acts, its genre, the meaning of historicity, how to measure historicity, textual variants within Acts, and extrabiblical sources that might throw light on the book. “It is possible to judge the work of an ancient writer from an unrealistic expectation by laying down criteria for acceptance which are too literalistically rigorous,” Hemer writes (43). Instead of doing that, he offers “a tabulation of guidelines to what seem to be the reasonable expectations of historicity in a writing like Acts” (46). Having tabulated those guidelines, he defends a contextual approach to the topic, explaining, “It is often through small and incidental points of fact that a text may be checked against its context, though we must be very careful about the conclusions drawn from such details” (53).
Chapter 3 turns to the question of whether ancient historiographers intended to communicate accurate historical information. Hemer demonstrates that ancient historians did strive for accuracy and outlined methods for rooting their accounts in what actually happened, though with qualifications and imperfections. Whether Luke is such an historian can neither be ruled out nor in without a patient examination of the “small and incidental points of fact” mentioned earlier, among other empirical data.
Hemer examines those facts in chapter 4 (“Types of Knowledge Displayed in Acts”), chapter 5 (“Evidence from Historical Details in Acts”), and an excursus (“Names and Titles in Acts”). The argument he presents in these sections is oblique rather than direct, and cumulatively forceful rather than individually dispositive. In other words, what he demonstrates is that Luke’s account of people, places, events, and vocabulary is broadly consistent with what is known from other sources regarding the context in that time and place, though not necessarily the exact event Luke reports. The patient accumulation of these “small and incidental points of fact” increasingly leaves readers with impression that Acts is historically plausible, which entails that its invention of events whole cloth is historically implausible. Hemer does not claim that these facts prove Luke’s account tout court, nor that they dispose of all historical difficulties in the book. And yet, they effectively remove reasonable doubt that Luke intended to present what actually happened. A wholly contrived report would not get so many details right across so many domains.
Chapters 6 and 7 turn to the main historical criticisms lodged by New Testament scholars against the historicity of Acts. These fall into two categories: (1) alleged theological disparities between Luke’s theology and Paul’s, disparities that scholars allege are difficult to explain if Luke were a faithful companion of Paul; and (2) chronological difficulties between Galatians and Acts on the topic of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem.
Hemer responds to the theological objection by arguing two points: “(1) These apparent conflicts are all matters open to explanation as deriving from different perspectives and contexts. … (2) The essential unity of the New Testament witness must be seen as capable of comprising a considerable degree of internal diversity without this diversity being seen as necessarily problematic as it seems to some” (247).
Hemer’s response to the chronological objection involves identifying “the visit of Acts 9 with that of Gal. 1, and the visit of Acts 11 with that of Gal. 2, the Council [of Jerusalem] visit of Acts 15 not being mentioned because it had not taken place by the time of the writing of Galatians (which on this hypothesis is the earliest of Paul’s epistles)” (247). A crucial objection to this reconstruction of Paul’s itinerary is the belief that references to “Galatia” and the “Galatians” cannot refer to cities visited on Paul’s first missionary journey,” since those cities were not ethnically Galatian (Galatian = Celtic). Rather than understanding “Galatia” and “Galatian” in an ethnic sense, Hemer presents inscriptional evidence that demonstrates a provincial understanding of the terms. Where the ethnic sense of the terms would point to what scholars call the “North Galatian” interpretation, Hemer’s provincial sense of the terms is consistent with a “South Galatian” interpretation.
Chapters 8 and 9 conclude the book with an examination of the authorship, sources, and dating of Acts. Hemer defends the traditional ascription of the Gospel and Acts to Luke, the Gentile convert and doctor-companion of Paul. He argues that Luke wrote Acts based on eyewitness sources whom he interviewed, access to Paul and his companions, and his own participation in the so-called “‘we’ passages” in the second half of Acts. He dates the publication of Acts to A.D. 62, at a time when Paul’s appeal to Caesar Nero in Rome is fast approaching. Hemer’s dating of Acts is probably more controversial than his identification of its author. The majority of contemporary scholars date Luke-Acts post-A.D. 70, with a date in the early 80s being the most common. There are a variety of reasons for this, a major one being the notion that Mark was one of Luke’s sources, and an A.D. 62 date is too early for Mark, let alone Luke.
Obviously, the truth of a matter does not depend on counting the noses of scholars. Hemer pushes back on the notion that a pre-A.D. 70 date for Acts is impossible simply by noting the leading New Testament scholars in the last two centuries—both conservative and liberal—who have affirmed an early date for its writing. Most importantly, he argues that such a date best explains features of the book, such as earliest Christianity’s conflicts with Sadducees, occasional alliance with Pharisees, generally positive portrayal of Roman officials, and the unresolved ending of the book.
So, is the Acts of the Apostles a source of authentic historical information about earliest Christianity?
Insofar as Acts is the sole account of most of the events it reports, its historicity cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. (Proven in the empirical sense. Obviously, Christian scholars will believe its historicity as a confessional matter.) However, Hemer’s patient accumulation of “small and incidental points of fact” makes it possible to believe that Luke intended to report what actually happened. In this reader’s opinion, such facts make it impossible to believe that Luke simply spun a tale out of his own imagination.
The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History is a classic work, though now somewhat dated—the sad fate of nearly all historical scholarship. By criticizing the false choice between interpreting Acts theologically and historically, Hemer contributed to reopening the question of Acts’ historicity. One need not affirm Hemer’s precise reconstruction of the chronology of the events Acts reports or its date of publication to recognize the value of the case he has made for taking Acts seriously as an historical work.
Book Reviewed
Colin J. Hemer, ed. Conrad H. Gempf, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990).
P.S. If you liked my review, please click "Helpful" on my Amazon review page.
January 13, 2019
This is an extremely academic book, but I guess it had to be. Most unfairly books of the bible are subject to questions of scrutiny and attacks on integrity, to a degree no other ancient historical writings are required to meet. Rather bizarrely it is particularly from so called biblical scholars coming up countless new ways to discredit biblical writing, that these attacks most usually come. Hemer has fought fire with fire, to surely put to bed any further arguments as to the historical basis for the book of Acts.
Hemer's methodology is to categorise and list the arguments and various possibilities; then to address them systematically. He does this from the background of a truly expert classicist (rather than revisionist theologian with ax to grind) with intimate knowledge of the Greco-Roman world - languages, archeology, inscriptions, legal and governmental processes, comparative literature; in fact the works. He proves without a shadow of doubt that there is nothing about the book of Acts to disbar it from being exactly what it purports to be - namely Luke's contemporary record of events at the founding of the Christian church, filled as it is with abundant evidences. Really this is simply Occams Razor at work, but such is the undermining/discrediting barrage that it was necessary to take the long route and instead of simply writing of the positives in Acts, rather to write counter to all supposed negatives.
Interestingly (other academics writing defences of the historicity of the bible have also died prior to publication!) this is posthumously published from manuscripts(1986). I wonder whether Hemer himself would have been able to revise prior to publication to widen the potential readership? As it sits the book is really formatted as an argument between academics with too much specialist knowledge assumed for even those with excellent general appreciation of the New Testament and its world. For example the various 'controversies' are not explained except by context, the Greek isn't even transliterated let alone translated, and there are vast numbers of abbreviations. Furthermore the 'categorisation and listing' method he used has led to a great deal of duplication of evidences, as they do, coming under multiple headings rather than being dealt with just the once.
Apart from fixing these issues, which would have added a few pages here and there filling in background and taken a few out with consolidations, it would have been nice to see a few maps and even some relevant plates. These changes would have greatly increased the potential audience... but presumably that would still be very small numbers. Notwithstanding these points this is by no means a large book, nor even with its 'discussive' style is it hard to read, once you deduct the perhaps accumulated 20% worth of reference footnotes which you can largely skip. Acts is safe - as Hemer asks and answers - we can can read it and say, 'this really happened!'
Hemer's methodology is to categorise and list the arguments and various possibilities; then to address them systematically. He does this from the background of a truly expert classicist (rather than revisionist theologian with ax to grind) with intimate knowledge of the Greco-Roman world - languages, archeology, inscriptions, legal and governmental processes, comparative literature; in fact the works. He proves without a shadow of doubt that there is nothing about the book of Acts to disbar it from being exactly what it purports to be - namely Luke's contemporary record of events at the founding of the Christian church, filled as it is with abundant evidences. Really this is simply Occams Razor at work, but such is the undermining/discrediting barrage that it was necessary to take the long route and instead of simply writing of the positives in Acts, rather to write counter to all supposed negatives.
Interestingly (other academics writing defences of the historicity of the bible have also died prior to publication!) this is posthumously published from manuscripts(1986). I wonder whether Hemer himself would have been able to revise prior to publication to widen the potential readership? As it sits the book is really formatted as an argument between academics with too much specialist knowledge assumed for even those with excellent general appreciation of the New Testament and its world. For example the various 'controversies' are not explained except by context, the Greek isn't even transliterated let alone translated, and there are vast numbers of abbreviations. Furthermore the 'categorisation and listing' method he used has led to a great deal of duplication of evidences, as they do, coming under multiple headings rather than being dealt with just the once.
Apart from fixing these issues, which would have added a few pages here and there filling in background and taken a few out with consolidations, it would have been nice to see a few maps and even some relevant plates. These changes would have greatly increased the potential audience... but presumably that would still be very small numbers. Notwithstanding these points this is by no means a large book, nor even with its 'discussive' style is it hard to read, once you deduct the perhaps accumulated 20% worth of reference footnotes which you can largely skip. Acts is safe - as Hemer asks and answers - we can can read it and say, 'this really happened!'
August 24, 2025
This is a very academic book on the historical reliability of Acts. It’s aged at this point, from 1989, but it remains one of the most referenced works by Christians defending the reliability of Acts as an early and eye-witness account of the early church and it laid the foundations for many of those who take Acts seriously as a historical account today. It’s probably best to read this with a Bible opened to Acts nearby. The book presumes knowledge of major issues in the study of Acts, but you can figure it out as you go. The book also has quite a few Greek words without translations, but the context makes most cases fairly easy to understand what the author is referencing. Definitely worth a read, especially since it’s available for free on Internet Archive.
January 4, 2020
Simply unsurpassed on the “naive” questions of historicity and the book of Acts.
July 19, 2016
Somewhat dry, but good scholarship on the book of acts.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews