来自《耶鲁大学开放课程：新约及其历史背景第5集第5集》

He was not an eyewitness of any of this stuff,

他不是任何任何这些事件的目击者
at least this stuff that he tells about here in this part.

至少是这部分里面提到的事件
There's some debate about whether he maybe was an

有些争论认为他(作者)或许是
eyewitness for some of the travels of Paul later in Acts,

保罗在使徒行传后期的一些旅程的目击者
but at this point he doesn't even claim to have been there.

但至此为止他甚至没提到自己曾亲历其中
As a historian, wouldn't you take an account by

作为一个历史学家你会更认可一个
an eyewitness, the person who actually

目击者的叙述一个亲身经历事件的人
experienced this, over an account written later?

还是后来的人写的叙述
This gentleman over here says, no,

那边的那位先生说不对
Paul's account is better historical source

保罗的叙述才是更可信的历史资料
because he was there.

因为他亲身经历
Anybody else make an argument?

有其他的看法吗