Underappreciated Evidence for the Reliability of the Gospels & Acts, Part 2

In my previous article, I laid out four categories of underappreciated evidence for the substantial trustworthiness of the gospel accounts. In this essay, I will present two categories of evidence for the reliability of the book of Acts – undesigned coincidences and external confirmations. I will conclude with a discussion of the evidential relevance of Acts to the case for Jesus’ resurrection.

Undesigned Coincidences

For our first example of a coincidence involving Acts and the letters of Paul, let us consider Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, which was written around 52-53 A.D. from Ephesus in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey). We know Paul wrote 1 Corinthians from Ephesus, because Paul sends greetings from Aquilla and Priscilla in 1 Corinthians 16:19, whom Paul had met in Corinth (Acts 18:1), and who travelled with Paul as far as Ephesus (Acts 18:26). Paul also alludes to his intention to “stay in Ephesus until Pentecost” (1 Corinthians 16:8). Corinth, the capital city of Achaia, on the other hand, was across the Aegean Sea from Ephesus.

Now, consider the following two texts from 1 Corinthians:

• 1 Corinthians 4:17: “That is why I sent you Timothy…”
• 1 Corinthians 16:10: “When Timothy comes…”

From the two texts given above, it is evident that Timothy had already been dispatched by the time of his writing, but nonetheless that he expected his letter to arrive before Timothy got to Corinth. Given that Ephesus is directly across the Aegean Sea from Achaia (where Corinth is), presumably Paul would have sent his letter directly by boat from Ephesus to Corinth. We therefore can infer that Timothy must have taken some route to Corinth that is less direct than that taken by the letter. When we turn over to Acts 19:21-22, which concerns Paul’s stay in Ephesus, we read:

Now after these events Paul resolved in the Spirit to pass through Macedonia and Achaia and go to Jerusalem, saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.” And having sent into Macedonia two of his helpers, Timothy and Erastus, he himself stayed in Asia for a while.

We can see therefore that Timothy (accompanied by Erastus) did take an indirect overland route to Corinth from Ephesus. Note that Corinth is not mentioned explicitly in Acts as Timothy and Erastus’ destination. The connection is thus quite indirect. Moreover, in Acts 20:1-4, we read:

After the uproar [in Ephesus] ceased, Paul sent for the disciples, and after encouraging them, he said farewell and departed for Macedonia. 2 When he had gone through those regions and had given them much encouragement, he came to Greece. 3 There he spent three months, and when a plot was made against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria, he decided to return through Macedonia. 4 Sopater the Berean, son of Pyrrhus, accompanied him; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and the Asians, Tychicus and Trophimus.

It is apparent that Timothy did in fact make it to Corinth, in Greece, confirming our prediction based upon the subtle clues in 1 Corinthians. Take note of how indirect this connection is. It thus corroborates the historicity of Acts.

Going back to our text in Acts 19:21-22, we see that Timothy’s travelling companion is specifically named as Erastus. In Romans 16:23, Erastus is said to be the city treasurer of Corinth (the epistle to the Romans was composed during Paul’s three-month stint in Corinth, alluded to in Acts 20:2-3). There is even an archaeological discovery – a pavement slab, recovered from the ruins of ancient Corinth, which states that “Erastus bore the expense of this pavement.” How fitting, then, that Timothy, on route to Corinth, should be travelling with someone whom we know on independent grounds was residing in the city of Corinth.

Let’s take a second example. In Acts 18:1-5, we read of Paul’s arrival in Corinth:

After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, 3 and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tent makers by trade. 4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks. 5 When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus.

We learn here that Paul worked as a tent-maker with Aquilla and Priscilla, and on the Sabbath day would reason with the Jews in the synagogue. But when Silas and Timothy arrive from Macedonia, Paul seems to have shifted his work focus, to become fully occupied with ministry. What caused this change? Luke doesn’t tell us – indeed, Luke may not even have known the reason. But when we turn over to 2 Corinthians 11:7-9, we have our answer:

Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God’s gospel to you free of charge? 8 I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you. 9 And when I was with you and was in need, I did not burden anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied my need.

In his own words, Paul corroborates the detail from Acts in a seemingly undesigned manner. We also learn that the brothers who came from Macedonia provided Paul with financial aid: a detail not supplied to us by Acts.

Another example of an undesigned coincidence may be found in Acts 17. We read that Paul’s ministry in Thessalonica was cut short by a mob of Jews who stirred up trouble for Paul and Silas, leading them to depart in haste for Berea (Acts 17:10). The text indicates that “when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Berea also, they came there too, agitating and stirring up the crowds,” (Acts 17:13). Paul thus left had to leave hurriedly for Athens, leaving behind Silas and Timothy (Acts 17:14). This is an unexplained allusion in Acts since there is no account provided as to the cause of Paul’s separation from Silas and Timothy. However, in 1 Thessalonians 3:1-5, Paul writes to the church in Thessalonica:

Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone, 2 and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s coworker in the gospel of Christ, to establish and exhort you in your faith, 3 that no one be moved by these afflictions. For you yourselves know that we are destined for this. 4 For when we were with you, we kept telling you beforehand that we were to suffer affliction, just as it has come to pass, and just as you know. 5 For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent to learn about your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and our labour would be in vain.

Under these circumstances, Timothy had been commissioned by Paul to return to Thessalonica to check on how the Christians there were doing, and then report back to Paul in Athens. This clarifies what is otherwise an unexplained allusion in Acts, doing so in an ostensibly undesigned manner, which in turn corroborates the history we read in Acts.

Let us examine a further example from Acts. Here is Acts 15:36-40:

And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us return and visit the brothers in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are.” 37 Now Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. 38 But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. 39 And there arose a sharp disagreement, so that they separated from each other. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and departed, having been commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord.

Why was Barnabas so desirous to take Mark with him, despite Mark proving himself to be unfaithful, having withdrawn from Paul and Barnabas previously in Pamphylia? Luke does not tell us. However, when we turn over to Colossians 4:10, we have our answer:

Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions – if he comes to you, welcome him).

Colossians supplies us with a plausible explanation for the sharp disagreement between Paul and Barnabas – Mark and Barnabas had a familial relationship, being cousins. Now, it is evident that Paul did not add this reference to Mark being the cousin of Barnabas in order to explain Acts. There is no indication in Colossians of there being any disagreement or falling out involving Mark. By the time Paul wrote to the Colossians, the dispute appears to have been resolved. Nor is Luke in Acts adding his narration of the conflict based on Colossians, for he makes no mention of Mark being the cousin of Barnabas (which would have in such a case been natural to include).

To take one final example, Acts 20:4 lists several companions of Paul who are stated to be travelling from Greece to Troas. Curiously, Acts carefully notes both their names and their city of origin. It is quite plausible that these individuals served as representatives of the various churches from whom Paul at this time was making a collection for the relief of the saints in Jerusalem (Romans 15:25-27; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8:1-4, 9:1-5).

We learn from Paul’s letters that Paul considered it to be of great importance that he was above reproach in financial matters, and he desired that people know that he was not trying to extort people for money. This is a major theme in both of the Corinthian epistles. In 1 Corinthians 16:3-4, Paul writes, “And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me.” He thus suggests that someone else might accompany the contribution of the Corinthians to Jerusalem rather than himself – and if it were advisable that he himself go then that person would go along with him.

This makes sense of why Paul was accompanied by such a large group, with their names and cities of origin carefully listed – they were there to ensure that he would not abscond with the money and presumably also to provide security for the collection with which Paul was travelling. This coincidence is particularly striking given that Acts never even mentions the collection except in a highly indirect allusion to it in a speech to Felix in Acts 24:17.

External Confirmations

Luke gets right the precise designation for the magistrates of the colony at Philippi as στρατηγοὶ (Acts 16:22), following the general term ἄρχοντας in verse 19. He uses the correct term πολιτάρχας for the magistrates in Thessalonica (17:6) and gets right the term Ἀρεοπαγίτης as the appropriate title for the member of the court in Areopagus (Acts 17:34). Luke also correctly identifies Gallio as proconsul, resident in Corinth (18:12), an allusion that allows us to date the events to the period of summer of 51 A.D. to the spring of 52 A.D., since that is when Gallio served as proconsul of Achaia.

Luke uses the correct title, γραμματεὺς, for the chief executive magistrate in Ephesus (19:35), found in inscriptions there. He even uses the correct Athenian slang word that the Athenians use of Paul in 17:18, σπερμολόγος (literally, “seed picker”), as well as the term used of the court in 17:19 — Ἄρειον Πάγον, meaning “the hill of Ares”. Acts16:14 mentions Lydia, a seller of purple dye or fabric, from Thyatira, a city in Asia Minor. That city was in fact a centre of the trade in purple dye. Luke also gets right numerous points of geography, sea routes and landmarks. For example, he gets right a natural crossing between correctly named ports (Acts 13:4-5). He names the proper port, Perga, for a ship crossing from Cyprus (13:13). He names the proper port, Attalia, that returning travellers would use (14:25). Luke correctly names the place of a sailor’s landmark, Samothrace (16:11) and correctly implies that sea travel was the most convenient means of travelling from Berea to Athens (17:14-15).

In Acts 20:13-14, we read, “But going ahead to the ship, we set sail for Assos, intending to take Paul aboard there, for so he had arranged, intending himself to go by land. And when he met us at Assos, we took him on board and went to Mitylene.” One might wonder how it was that Paul expected to travel on foot from Troas to Assos on the tip of Asia Minor, having the ship on which his friends were sailing pick him up at Assos, since presumably the ship would travel faster. Colin Hemer explains that “Paul’s staying behind at Troas and travelling overland to rejoin the ship’s company at Assos is appropriate to local circumstances, where the ship had to negotiate an exposed coast and double Cape Lectum before reaching Assos.” [1]

There are also various instances where external sources supply historical background that illuminates the account in Acts. For example, consider Acts 23:1-5, when Paul, having been apprehended and brought before the Jewish council, was struck on the mouth at the behest of Ananias the high priest. Paul responds by pointing out the hypocrisy of Ananias. To this, those who were standing by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” Paul’s response is somewhat odd: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” This raises a natural question – why is it that Paul did not realise who the high priest was?

This Ananias was the son of Nebedinus (Antiquities 20.5.3), who occupied the office of high priest when Quadratus (Felix’s predecessor) was president of Syria. Josephus reports that he was sent bound to Rome by Quadratus in order to give an account of his actions to Claudius Caesar (Antiquities 20.6.2). As a result of the intercession on their behalf by Agrippa, they were dismissed and returned to Jerusalem. However, Ananias was not restored to his former office of high priest. Ananias was succeeded by Jonathan, as is indicated by the fact that Josephus refers to one called Jonathan occupying the office of high priest during the government of Felix, which would imply that Ananias’ high priesthood was interrupted (Antiquities 20.8.5). Jonathan himself was assassinated inside the temple (Antiquities 20.8.5).

Following Jonathan’s death, the office of the high priest was not occupied until Ismael, the son of Fabi, was appointed by King Agrippa (Antiquities 20.8.8). The events that are recorded in Acts 23 took place precisely in this interval. Ananias was in Jerusalem and the office of the high priesthood lay vacant. It seems, then, that Ananias acted, by his own authority, in the assumed capacity of the high priest. This, then, illuminates Paul’s words in Acts 23:5: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest.” Luke doesn’t even take the time to explain the historical backstory in his account of this event. The sources interlock in a way that points to the truth of the narrative we find in Acts.

Several features of the voyage in Acts 27 can also be corroborated. The report of that voyage notes that “The next day we put in at Sidon. And Julius treated Paul kindly and gave him leave to go to his friends and be cared for. And putting out to sea from there we sailed under the lee of Cyprus, because the winds were against us. And when we had sailed across the open sea along the coast of Cilicia and Pamphylia, we came to Myra in Lycia. There the centurion found a ship of Alexandria sailing for Italy and put us on board.” Colin Hemer comments:

Myra, like Patara again, was a principal port for the Alexandrian corn-ships, and precisely the place where Julius would expect to find a ship sailing to Italy in the imperial service. Its official standing here is further illustrated by the Hadrianic granary. Myra was also the first of these ports to be reached by a ship arriving from the east, as Patara had been previously from the reverse direction. [2]

Verses 13-14 indicate that they “…sailed along Crete, close to the shore. But soon a tempestuous wind, called the northeaster, struck down from the land.” In confirmation of Luke’s report, there is indeed a well-confirmed wind that rides over Crete from the Northeast, and which is strongest at this exact time near Passover. [3] Acts 27:16 describes how the ship was blown off course towards a small island called Cauda. What is impressive is that the island of Cauda is more than 20 miles west-southwest of where the storm likely struck the travellers in the Bay of Messara.

This is precisely where the trajectory of a north-easterly wind should have carried them, and it is not the sort of information someone would have inferred without having been blown there. Ancients found it nearly impossible to properly locate islands this far out. Colin Hemer notes that:

In the places where we can compare, Luke fares much better than the encyclopaedist Pliny, who might be regarded as the foremost first-century example of such a source. Pliny places Cauda (Gaudos) opposite Hierapytna, some ninety miles too far east (NH 4.12.61). Even Ptolemy, who offers a reckoning of latitude and longitude, makes a serious dislocation to the northwest, putting Cauda too near the western end of Crete, in a position which would not suit the unstudied narrative of our text (Ptol. Geog. 3.15.8). [4]

A popular objection here is that it is hardly surprising that a first century author would write accurately about the first century world in which he lived. However, it is naïve to suppose that, in the first century world in which Luke lived, the geographical, political, terminological, and other subtle facts that the book of Acts gets right would have been widely and easily known or accessible. As Dr. Timothy McGrew often puts it, the argument for Acts being based on eyewitness testimony is that the book of Acts gets hard things right. We must not anachronistically think of the ancient world as being able to easily look up these facts, using modern resources like Google or Wikipedia, and include them in a fictional story. Indeed, in the case of the book of Acts, which was written in a world without the ease of access to information that we enjoy today, the author would have had to travel around all of those same places or, at the very least, interview people who had been there to get those hard things right. Luke would also have to include those very specific facts in an account of historical fiction: a genre that did not even exist at the time.

Why It Matters: The Case for the Resurrection

The evidence sampled in the foregoing provides strong cumulative support for the contention that Luke was indeed a travelling companion of the apostle Paul, as he himself claims to be. The author of Luke-Acts claims to have received information concerning Jesus’ life from those who were themselves eyewitnesses. In the prologue of his gospel, he writes,

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught, (Luke 1:1-4).

Though it is not clear from this text alone whether he is referring to personal interviews, written reports, or oral tradition, we can establish that Luke had access to individuals who were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ public ministry and purportedly witnesses to his resurrection from the dead. In Acts 21:17-18, Luke writes, “When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.” In this text, Luke uses the plural pronoun, ἡμῶν, implying that he was personally present with Paul during this visit.

There is an abundance of evidence to indicate that the best interpretation of the inclusive plural pronouns in Acts is that the author is claiming to have travelled with Paul, and that this claim is highly credible. Luke indicates that “all the elders were present,” (Acts 21:18). This would have included, at minimum, Peter, James and John (Galatians 2:9). Luke was also apparently present during Paul’s imprisonment for at least two years in Caesarea Maritima, only about seventy kilometres from Jerusalem. He would thus presumably have also had access during this time to those individuals who were purportedly eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection, thereby placing him in a unique position to know what the original apostles were claiming regarding the nature and variety of the post-resurrection encounters with the risen Jesus.

Luke’s demonstrated meticulousness as an historian, coupled with the fact that he was putting his neck on the line on account of the Christian message, support that Luke’s representation of what the alleged witnesses of the resurrection were claiming is probably accurate. This is significant because, according to Luke, the apostles were not merely claiming that Jesus had appeared to them after his death but that it involved group encounters and conversations (Luke 24:36-49), extended discourses (Luke 24:13-31), physical contact (Luke 24:39-40), and eating food (Luke 24:42). This is the sort of claim about which it is quite difficult to be sincerely mistaken.

The book of Acts also confirms the general context of persecution, recounting the beating of Peter and John (Acts 5:17-42), the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:54-60) and James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:1-2), and the imprisonment of Peter (Acts 12:3-5), in addition to the numerous sufferings of Paul on account of the gospel. Given that the early apostles – that is, those who were purportedly eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection – were willing to voluntarily undertake dangers, hardships, beatings, imprisonments, and martyrdom, this goes a long way towards establishing their sincerity. Given the implausibility of the competing hypotheses that the apostles were honestly mistaken or lying about the resurrection, I would contend that the most probable explanation of the evidence is that Jesus rose from the dead.

References

1. Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 125.
2. Ibid., 134.
3. White, R. W. (2002). A Meteorological Appraisal of Acts 27:5-26. The Expository Times, 113(12), 403–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/001452460211301203
4. Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 331.