Not according to the book, it says the 84 facts have been historically and archaeologically confirmed and gives a footnote. see page 256 of this site.
<snipped the links and unrelated nonsense>
DOC,
The 84 detailed historical "facts" offered by Geisler are not exactly historic in the sense that they prove any part of Christianity to be true. Geisler points out that the author knew proper terms, mentions several temples in the major cities, and seemed to understand basic sailing and sea navigation. Most of this could be explained by having an author that lived around the Aegean Sea and came into contact with one of Paul's churches...around 95 CE or later.
The author is an historian in the sense that he describes life in the eastern Mediterranean around the first century. This actually helps to prove a later date of composition than what Geisler would like to admit.
(Where the author of Acts gets into trouble is when he describes Paul's words and deeds quite different then how Paul does in his own letters. Plus, did you ever notice how Paul refers to himself as an Apostle in his own letters, yet Luke, his supposed traveling companion, never refers to him as such...hmmm.)
Also, on page 270 Geisler shows a table that is titled "New Testament Figures Cited by Non-Christian Writers and/or Confirmed by Archaeology". The list contains many Roman leaders, Jesus, John the Baptist, and James, brother of Jesus. Josephus is listed for most as the primary non-Christian written source. The archaeological evidence presented are coins found that have different Roman leaders imprinted on them, an ossuary that contained the bones of Caiaphas, and a few inscriptions that mention these leaders by name.
Yes, this is historical evidence that THOSE people existed. None of this proves that Jesus rose from the dead.
For Geisler to state that because "Luke" knew the correct language "spoken in Lystra was Lycaonian" (#5) and he mentioned "Zeus and Hermes" as the correct gods worshipped in Lystra (#6) means everything he wrote to be factual is a bit of a stretch, don't ya think?
If by footnote you mean his quote from A. N. Sherwin-White (Roman Historian), then I find it interesting that he snipped out a part of the sentence. Geisler has this:
"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming....Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear to be absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."
Hmmm...What was edited out? Here's the line that was removed by Geisler:
"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions." - Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament by A. N. Sherwin-White pg 189.
So yes, there are genuine historical facts in Acts that are mixed-in with the author's propaganda, just like the other Gospels. Basically any text from history, even if completely fictional, would be of value to a historian because they would reflect the beliefs and ideas of the author and the audience for which it was written.
Doesn't mean those beliefs or ideas are true though...
