Is The Acts Of The Apostles Historically Reliable? (Part 2 of 2)

By Brian Janeway [1]

Brian Janeway earned his B.A. degree from the University of Kentucky and has begun work towards an M.A. in biblical archaeology. He has worked on several archaeological digs in Israel with the Associates for Biblical Research. Mr. Janeway is employed as a pilot for American Airlines in New York City. His email address is bigedj@aol.com.

Part One of this article initially detailed the history of the criticism of the Book of Acts by tracing the birth of radical skepticism. [2] In response to the Tübingen thesis, a “weighty counter-blow” was struck by new archaeological discoveries, especially those of Sir William Ramsay who affirmed the historicity of Acts. Finally after examining the speeches in Acts and the ancient practice of historiography, Luke was found to be a faithful recorder of history in the best tradition of historians like Thucydides and Lucian.

Part Two of this article will analyze three more aspects of Luke’s work: 1) the we passages, 2) archaeological and historical data, and 3) alleged difficulties in the text. Lastly, based upon the findings of both Parts One and Two, the question of whether or not the Book of Acts is worthy of our trust will be answered.

WE Passages

Style Criticism

The so-called we passages in Acts present a unique and interesting opportunity to probe Luke’s reliability. Analyses of these accounts are often bound up with regard to the identity of the author. Whether or not the author actually accompanied Paul on these voyages, Cadbury called an “insoluble riddle.” [3] Upon closer examination, however, the “riddle” does not appear to be insoluble.

The we passages all appear in the last chapters of Acts. Since the author moved in and out of the narrative as a participant, the accounts are linked with theys. The passages in Acts being considered are:

16:10–17	Journey from Troas to Philippi
20:5–16	Journey from Philippi to Miletus
21:1–18	Journey from Miletus to Jerusalem
27:1–28:16	Journey from Caesarea to Rome

Except for short overland segments, the majority of the passages concern sea voyages. The obvious explanation for these accounts is that the writer was a participant in the events whenever he used the term we. [4] However, nothing is taken prima facie in the field of biblical criticism.

There are three distinct views regarding these passages. The author was either: 1) an actual eyewitness; 2) a recorder of the eyewitness accounts of others; or 3) an author using a literary device to create the effect of verisimitude. For the purposes of establishing historical trustworthiness, the distinction between the first two views is irrelevant. Luke could well have used accurate accounts borrowed from others. Therefore, we are left with two possibilities. Either the accounts represent eyewitness information, or they were a product of literary device.

Again, the work of Dibelius is credited with bringing a new perspective to the field. His hypothesis has been widely accepted by subsequent scholars. He proposed that the author had access to a travel diary or “itinerary” that he used as a framework into which he inserted “edifying” tales at appropriate junctures. He supports this by noting that places are mentioned at which nothing really occurs; for example, Attalia (Acts 14:2–5), Samothrace and Neapolis (Acts 16:11), and Amphipolis (Acts 17:1). [5] However, a stronger argument could be made that the numerous incidental details are best explained by eyewitness participation. What better reason for their inclusion?

Paul’s Shipwreck Voyage

The case of Paul’s shipwreck journey (Acts 27–28) is an excellent one for closer analysis. Ltidemann in his chapter-by-chapter redactional study asserts that the use of technical nautical expressions should not mislead one into believing the account is historical. [6] Using the itinerary theory from Dibelius, he notes that Paul is only mentioned in four passages during the sequence from Myra to Malta. Hence, Paul could easily be “detached from the action without difficulty.” [7]

Lüdemann continues in his effort to separate redactions from traditions from historical material. Not surprisingly, after filtering out the former two, he is left with precious little that may be considered historical. He attributes the shipwreck to parallels in ancient literature that mingle the first person with the third person, such as Odysseus’ accounts in Homer’s Odyssey. However, the result is a “literary entity” in which Luke added Paul to the passages noted. In an astoundingly curt dismissal, he concludes “there should no longer be any dispute here.” [8]

Fortunately, one cannot so easily dispense with the accounts. Gilchrist lists several reasons for supporting his contention that Luke drew on personal recollections.

• The realism of the passages and their extensive, even unnecessary detail is explainable only by personal memory.
• The “unobtrusive use of we and its introduction without explanation.”
• The author’s failure to use we throughout the narrative when he could have made extensive use of it.
• The apparent knowledge of the emergency measures taken at sea. [9]

In addition, Gilchrist makes an astute observation concerning the overall natural construction of the passages. He counts nearly one hundred uses of we in which the author has no problem alternating with theys and other third person pronouns. The impression is of a seamless series of transitions that would require a “particularly well-disciplined imagination” to execute. The most satisfactory conclusion is that Luke simply recounted his own experiences. [10]

In the 1840s, a layman named James Smith conducted a remarkable study on Paul’s last voyage. He was an amateur yachtsman of thirty years’ experience who traveled throughout the eastern Mediterranean where Paul’s voyages took place. Scholars still refer to his findings today. In it he wrote of Luke:

His style… though accurate, is unprofessional. No sailor would have written in a style so little like that of a sailor; no man not a sailor could have written a narrative of a sea voyage so consistent in all its parts, unless from actual observation. This peculiarity of style is to me, in itself, a demonstration that the narrative of the voyage is an account of real events, written by an eyewitness. The geographical details must have been taken from actual observation, for the geographical knowledge of the age was not such as to enable a writer to be so minutely accurate in any other way. [11]

What were some of these peculiarities and geographical details? Hemer compiled an extensive (but not exhaustive) list of these features.

• Acts 27:6 Myra was a principal port for Alexandrian ships transporting corn and was the exact place that the centurion would have found a Roman ship. [12]
• Acts 27:7 The passage around the south of Crete would appear to be an unlikely one, but due to the prevailing northwesterly wind it was forced upon the ship. In fact, this was the normal route for vessels to take. [13]
• Acts 27:8 The author accurately attested to the obscure locations of Fair Havens and Lasea. Neither would likely be known by someone not on the voyage. [14]
• Acts 27:16 The island of Cauda is precisely placed and correctly named. It is also where a helpless ship would realistically be driven by a northeasterly wind from beyond the refuge of Cape Matala. [15]
• Acts 27:27 Calculations made by Smith to estimate the time for a ship to drift from Cauda to Malta were confirmed by local sailors at close to fourteen days. [16]
• Acts 27:27 The expanse of sea named Adria, now known as the Adriatic is corroborated by Josephus. [17]
• Acts 28:7 The title leading man of the island in Malta has been confirmed by inscriptions. [18]
• Acts 28:15 The author accurately locates two way points on the Appian Way: Market of Appius and Three Inns. [19]

The precision and detail of these accounts is formidable evidence that argues strongly against an artificial creation. Many scholars have taken note of the richness of this account, [20] Contrasted with the earlier parts of Acts, the we passages are superior in detail. It would appear reasonable that when Luke was a participant, a more graphic depiction and detailed narrative reflected his presence as an eyewitness, more so than when he was not a participant and relied on the oral or written sources of others.

On the other hand, it is generally accepted that the we passages do not differ from the sections in which they are embedded in style, vocabulary or subject matter. This consistency of style demonstrates that the author was skillful in his incorporation of sources and eyewitness accounts into a uniform whole. The uniformity in language and topics bears the imprint of a single author.

The insoluble riddle with which we began with turns out to be not so insoluble after all. The premises from which the style, literary, and redaction critics have worked are essentially subjective and highly speculative. When confronted with the aggregate of geographic, topographic, and epigraphic evidence, the literary convention theory is unsustainable. In the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, the historical trustworthiness of the we accounts ought to remain unassailable.

Archaeology/History

Rulers in Acts

Since the First World War, many scholars have either minimized or ignored altogether the contributions from the fields of archaeology and historical research. Hemer believes the debate was prematurely closed due to the war, whereas Gasque attributes the absence of discussion to an ideological bias. As a result, a large body of archaeological and historical research has been upstaged by an unproductive preoccupation with Luke’s theology.

Luke mentions many rulers and prominent persons in Acts. The most important of these for establishing a chronological perspective is Lucius Junius Gallio. An inscription bearing his name was found in Delphi, Greece. On it the emperor Claudius (A.D. 41-54) writes to that city of a report received by Gallio, “my friend and proconsul of Achaia.” Based on the tribunal year of Claudius, which is also mentioned, the inscription can be dated at A.D. 52. [21] This is the same Gallio that Paul appeared before after having been in Corinth for eighteen months (Acts 18:12). Finegan uses this as a fixed date from which he reckons both forward and backward based on references in Acts and the epistles. [22]

The authorities imprisoned Peter and John in Jerusalem for preaching and then brought them before Annas the high priest … and Caiaphas (Acts 4:6). Caiaphas was deposed in A.D. 36. [23]

The high priest Ananias commanded his henchmen to strike Paul on the mouth for speaking out of turn (Acts 23:2). Because Josephus records his priesthood, Paul’s trial before him can be dated to A.D. 57. [24]

Although the precise dates cannot be determined, the priest Gamaliel (Acts 5:34), grandson of Hillel, served during the reign of either Herod Agrippa I or Agrippa II. [25]

On the island of Cyprus, Paul encountered the Proconsul Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:7). An inscription found on that island in 1889, mentions a proconsul Paulus, but the identification with the Paulus of Acts is uncertain due to difficulties with the dating of the inscription. Another possible reference to the Paulus of Acts appears on an inscription in Ephesus. This Sergius Paulus was proconsul of Asia at a date that could identify him as the same ruler Paul mentions in Acts 13:7. [26]

The emperor Claudius (A.D. 41-54) is well known for his edict expelling the Jews from Rome. While there is some disagreement over the nature of this expulsion, McRay takes its mention by Suetonius as evidence dating the event at A.D. 49. [27] Paul’s visit to Corinth and his meeting with Aquila and Priscilla “having recently come from Italy” (Acts 18:2) make this date plausible. Additionally, Aquila is a common Roman name that is attested in contemporary Pontus from which the couple originated. [28]

Chapters 23–25 of Acts name several rulers along with their wives before whom Paul was tried. Hanson notes a “very remarkable piece of synchronization on the part of the author” taking place. Paul encountered the high priest Ananias prior to appearing before the procurator Felix. Felix was married to Drusilla. After some interval of time, Festus succeeded him, shortly after arriving in Palestine. Festus gave a hearing to Paul before Agrippa II, whose sister Bernice was living with him at the time. Given such a quiltwork of persons and events, it would have taken a considerable amount of research for a later historian to piece together. [29]

Two other aspects of Paul’s hearings before Felix and Festus deserve attention. First, the charges brought against Paul by Tertullus read: this man is a real pest and a fellow who stirs up a plague and disturbances for the Jews throughout the world (Acts 24:5). An expert in Roman law, Sherwin-White, noted the similarity to a famous letter of Claudius sent to the people of Alexandria in which he objects to certain Jews “stirring up a universal plague throughout the world.” [30] The contemporaneous usage is unmistakable. Through their attorney, Tertullus, the Jews attempted to misconstrue Paul’s dispute with them as a legal threat to Rome, even to the extent of borrowing language used by the emperor Claudius, himself. Since the Roman procurators cared little for religious squabbles among the Jews, the political case was the most important one to be made. [31]

The second item of note concerns Felix’s question to Paul. In Acts 23:34–35, he asks from what province he was and upon learning Paul was from Cilicia decided to hear the case after your accusers arrive also. If Cilicia was a dependency of the Legate of Syria, why then would Felix hear Paul? The answer lies understanding the political status of Cilicia. By the Flavian period (A.D. 69-96), Cilicia became a separate province with an imperial legate of its own. Prior to this change, instead of sending Paul back to Cilicia, Felix (and then Festus) made the logical decision not to bother the Legate of Syria with a minor case emanating from an outlying area. [32] Therefore, the account of the trial in Caesarea evidences an intimacy with procedures and geographical distinctions that were particular to a narrow period of time.

In addition to the aforementioned political charge, Paul was also charged with bringing Greeks into the temple and thereby defiling it (Acts 21:27–29). This was a very serious matter for the Jews. The temple contained an outer court for the Gentiles, but under the penalty of death, they could proceed no closer to the sanctuary. An inscription found in 1870 attests to this fact: “Let no one of the Gentiles enter inside the barrier around the sanctuary and the porch; and if he transgresses he shall himself bear the blame for his ensuing death.” A fragmentary inscription of a similar type was also found near the Lion’s or St. Stephen’s Gate in 1935. [33]

Paul’s Citizenship

There is also the matter of Paul’s Roman citizenship which he used to his advantage with great cunning whenever circumstance required it. Paul’s appeal to Caesar is an example of the privileges pertaining to Roman citizenship (Acts 25:11). Upon appeal to Caesar, either the accused was not tried or at most a preliminary investigation was made before leaving the case for the emperor. After having received his appeal, to acquit Paul would have offended both the emperor and the province. “No sensible man with hopes of promotion would dream of short-circuiting the appeal to Caesar unless he had specific authority to do so.” Therefore, Festus was very glad, politically, to rid himself of Paul. [34]

Although the status of Roman citizenship was not to remain exclusive for long, at the time Paul declared himself a holder of the franchise, it was prevalent, especially in the east, to attach great significance to it as a sort of “honorary degree.” [35] In Acts a person is either a Roman or a provincial. Eventually, during the reign of Claudius, the expansion of Roman citizenship became a topic of great debate in Rome, because of an overly rapid pace of citizenship being granted in the provinces. In the decades following Claudius, the pace “flooded fast and high,” though not as fast in the East as in the West. In its references to citizenship, Acts is correct in its specific details and at the general level. [36]

Haenchen contended that Luke had to show the favor of the Roman authorities to the gospel by dramatizing the trial scenes. A “disquisition on legal technicalities would have meant nothing to his readers.” [37] The evidence from the study of early Roman legal history suggests quite a different conclusion.

Titles

In Ephesus

Luke’s use of titles has often been cited as evidence of his accuracy and familiarity with local conditions. In Ephesus, Paul befriended political figures known as Asiarchs. Strabo, among other ancient authors, speaks of these figures. Usually serving one-year terms, they were chosen from among the wealthiest and most aristocratic in the province to finance public games and festivals. Inscriptions attesting Asiarchs have been found in over forty cities in Asia. [38]

In Thessalonica

In Thessalonica, Paul encounters officials known as Politarchs. The term, otherwise unknown in extant Greek literature, is attested on seventeen inscriptions found in that city. Additionally, the word used to describe the anger of the Jewish mob is the same one used by a mother in reference to her child in an ancient letter found in Alexandria. She was terribly disturbed with him “and she said, ‘He quite upsets me. Off with him!’” [39]

Philippi and Macedonia

Recognized as a we passage, Acts 16:12–40 describes how Paul and Silas baptized Lydia and her household, earned the wrath of some of the inhabitants, and endured false imprisonment and a beating with rods at the hands of the city’s magistrates (praetors). The events that transpired in Philippi contain much historically significant information.

Luke describes Philippi as a Roman colony, a correct description attested by its mostly Latin epigraphy. Furthermore, the city is referred to as a leading city of the district of Macedonia (Acts 16:12) implying that Macedonia was subdivided into districts. Indeed, the fact that Macedonia was uniquely divided into four districts by the Romans has been confirmed by an inscription. According to Sherwin-White, this designation for Philippi would not have been understood outside of the province and “suggests eyewitness.” [40]

The personal details of the passage reveal interesting bits of history. Paul and Silas speak with an assembly of women at a riverside outside the gate. There they meet Lydia from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics (Acts 16:14). Lydia is attested as a name of commoners and nobility. Up until this century Thyatira continued to be a center for the dyeing of fabrics. During Paul’s time at least seven inscriptions from Thyatira attest to the particular nature of its commerce. An ancient commercial connection between the city and Macedonia has also been shown. [41]

The women of ancient Macedonia held a particularly high social standing. In Philippi (already mentioned), in Berea, and in Thessalonica, Paul counts them among his converts. [42] In Thessalonica, they are called “Greek women of high standing.” This status is in accord with what we know historically:

…the women were in all respects the men’s counterparts; they played a large part in affairs, received envoys and obtained concessions for them from their husbands, built temples, [and] founded cities. [43]

Finally, in Philippi Paul and Silas are brought before the city’s magistrates or “praetors” and beaten with rods. The title “praetor” is accurately ascribed, while their attendants are named “lictors,” or “rod bearers.” All of this historical information is not only observed but also confirmed in Acts 16:12–40.

Corinth and Achaia

As indicated earlier, Gallio was the official in Corinth before whom Paul was brought in the year A.D. 52. Luke accurately used his title, proconsul. This title could not be rightly ascribed to every Roman governor. A very exact historical knowledge was required to correctly identify such officials and discern whether or not the jurisdiction of that province was senatorial or imperial.

The senate and the emperor frequently exchanged these provinces depending upon political circumstances. The governor’s designation, jurisdiction and time period in question would change accordingly. A few years before Paul’s arrival, the province of Achaia had been administered by the emperor; therefore, the title propraetor was properly applied to its governor. However, at the time of Paul’s visit, the senate controlled the province: therefore, Luke accurately names Gallio as a proconsul. [44]

Cyprus and Judea

Based on coins found on the island, Cyprus was originally an imperial province, but in 22 B.C. it was transferred to the senate. Therefore, Luke accurately ascribes the title of proconsul to Sergius Paulus. [45] Both Felix and Festus are correctly named procurators of Judea. In addition, proper terms are applied to various Roman soldiers, two centurions (Cornelius and Julius) with the names of their cohorts (Italian and Augustan), and to one tribune, Claudius Lysias. [46]

Names

In Judea

In Acts 8:27, Philip ministers to an eunuch from the court of a Queen Candace of Ethiopia. Thanks to excavations conducted in Nubia in 1908–09, the name Candace has been attested. In Acts chapter 5, Ananias and Sapphira sold a piece of property ostensibly to give as an offering to the church, but withheld some of the proceeds and were condemned by Peter. Before 1933, no evidence of the name, Sapphira, could be found outside the Bible. However, since then, several ossuaries have been discovered bearing this name, dating from the first century. [47]

In Macedonia

According to Acts 19:22, Paul sent Erastus along with Timothy to Macedonia. Was this Erastus the same individual mentioned by Paul in Romans 16:23 and 2 Timothy 4:20? These latter passages are associated with Corinth, where in 1929 a slab of pavement was discovered which read “Erastus in return for his aedileship laid (the pavement) at his own expense.” The office of aedile was comparable to a magistrate and was common in many Greek colonies. [48] McRay identifies this Erastus as most likely the Erastus of the Bible for three reasons. First, he dates the pavement ca. A.D. 50—a likely time for Erastus’ conversion. Second, the name Erastus is uncommon and not found anywhere else in Corinth. And third, in his epistle to the Romans the word Paul used to describe Erastus’ position city treasurer matches the work of an aedile in Corinth. [49] On the other hand, Hemer and Cadbury do not support McRay’s theory. The positions of treasurer and aedile are thought to have different responsibilities and likely would have been drawn from different strata of society. Moreover, the pavement may have dated from after Paul’s time. Given the scant correlating information in the New Testament concerning Erastus and the uncertainty of the date of the inscription, the verdict is inconclusive. Except in the case of kings, queens, et al., the probabilities of correlating epigraphic evidence with actual persons in Acts is “generally remote.” [50]

In Ephesus

There is nothing remote about the vivid picture of city life in Ephesus. In Acts no other city is portrayed in such rich detail. Wood’s search for the Temple of Artemis in the nineteenth century has been largely responsible for the wealth of archaeological material excavated.

In Acts chapter 19, three types of officials are mentioned in the narrative—the Roman proconsul (19:38), the chief magistrate of the city (19:35) and the Asiarchs. All of these are well attested by epigraphy discovered in the city. [51]

The merchant’s dispute with Paul and his brethren concerned potential losses in the lucrative business of selling silver statues of their beloved goddess, Artemis. The chief magistrate is the official that the silversmiths would logically have approached with their complaint. Additionally, the theater was the proper venue for the gathering to take place, as it was the location for regular meetings of the town assembly. An early (first-century) feature of town life, the assemblies were later stopped as a part of Rome’s long range goal to eliminate democratic institutions. [52]

In addition to the great Temple of Artemis, archaeologists have excavated the theater along with statues of Artemis at Ephesus. While no silver statues have been found, three terra cotta and marble ones were recovered in one building. Interestingly, another Artemis statue was uncovered in Caesarea indicating the widespread nature of the cult. [53]

Demetrius, the silversmith, referred to this widespread worship when he complained to his fellow craftsmen lamenting the irreverence to Artemis whom all of Asia and the world worship (Acts 19:27). Later the chief magistrate asked what man is there after all who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is guardian of the temple of the great Artemis (Acts 19:35)? The residents and merchants were zealously proud of their status as guardian of the cult. From the theater their chant rang through out the city, Great is Artemis of the Ephesians (Acts 19:28) Numerous inscriptions found in Ephesus as well as in ancient literature confirm the use of “great” to describe their goddess. [54] In the very theater where the disturbance took place, an inscription was found that refers to a silver statue and to a lawful (regular) assembly. It provided that a certain silver image of Artemis be brought and “set at every lawful assembly above the bench where the boys sit.” [55]

The evidence in Acts not only agrees in general with the civic situation in Asia Minor in the first and early second centuries A.D., but falls into place in the earlier rather than the later phase of development. [56]

In Lystra

After having been chased from Iconium, Paul and Barnabas arrived in the city of Lystra, where they promptly preached the gospel and healed a lame man.

And when the multitudes saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying in the Lycaonian language, The gods have become like men and have come down to us. And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker (Acts 14:11–12).

The worship of these two Greek gods was characteristic of the region. Two inscriptions near Lystra were discovered in 1909 confirming this fact. One was a monument erected to “priests of Zeus.” The other was the dedication of a statue of “Hermes Most Great,” along with a sundial to Zeus, the “sun god.” [57]

Ramsay describes the scene graphically and notes the importance of the Lycaonian language. The association of those two gods (Hermes and Zeus) has been attested to, as well as the fact that the Lycaonian language was spoken in Lystra at this time. Ramsay observes that Paul, having just arrived from Iconium, where Phrygian was the spoken language, noted the change of tongue in Lystra. The fact that the Greeks called out to the two as gods would be consistent with their recent arrival as strangers to the city. Had Paul and Barnabas spent some period of time there, the inhabitants would likely not have regarded them with such awe. The letter to the Galatians corresponds well with the reception described in Acts. It was there that Paul found an open door and was warmly greeted by the Galatians as a messenger of God (Galatians 4:14). [58]

Over one hundred proper names are mentioned in Acts. In many cases, the author does not include any further information. But to assume that the names are fictitious, would be injudicious, in the light of the accuracy of Luke’s accounts regarding rulers and officials. [59] Therefore, in the Book of Acts, when Luke mentions individuals such as Rhoda (12:13), Tabitha (9:36), Damaris (17:34), Lydia (16:14), Jason (17:7), Titius Justus, Crispus, and Sostenes (18:7–8, 17), Agabus (11:28; 21:10), Gaius the Macedonian (19:29), and Gaias of Derbe (20:4), three different people named Ananias (5:1; 9:10; 23:2), Aeneas (9:33) et al., the logical assumption is that he either made use of sources or knew the individuals himself. While this line of reasoning may not guarantee historicity, it demonstrates Luke’s sharp attention to detail, much of which we can verify. [60]

The historicity of some individuals can be corroborated by their appearance in the epistles. Aristarchus accompanied Paul on his visit to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4), was dragged into the theater in Ephesus (Acts 19:29), and is called fellow worker by Paul in Philemon verse 24. In Colossians 4:10, he is remembered as a fellow prisoner of Paul’s. Tychicus (Acts 20:4) is referred to as a co-worker in Ephesians 6:21 and Colossians 4:7. Trophimus of Asia also traveled with Paul to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4) and the Jews supposed that Paul brought him into the temple illegally (Acts 21:29). Later, he fell ill in Miletus (2 Timothy 4:20). [61]

Archaeologists and classical historians have attested the many historical details of Luke’s accounts in Acts. The foregoing survey is not intended to be exhaustive. Many more parallels, both large and small, exist. However, the amassed evidence proves Luke to be a faithful historian. Indeed, Sherwin-White observes:

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. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. [62]

Difficulties

Minor Peculiarities

The Book of Acts exhibits a marvelous degree of verifiable accuracy regarding people and events. Nevertheless, the narrative is not without some difficulties.

Acts 5:36–7: In his speech to the Jewish Council, Gamaliel warns the men of Israel to leave the Jewish Christians alone. He reminds them of Theudas and then Judas, both of whom led movements only to be slain and dispersed. Josephus records these events as occurring in A.D. 6 (Judas) and ca. A.D. 44 (Theudas), respectively. Gamaliel’s speech is assumed to have taken place over 10 years before the latter. Calling this “one of the clearest examples of error on the author’s part,” Hanson concludes that the speech is a Lucan composition. [63] On the other hand, some speculate that Luke used Josephus as a source and miscopied him regarding the order of these revolts. This scenario is unlikely, because Josephus published his Antiquities ca. A.D. 93. Most scholars agree that Luke did not use Josephus as a source. [64] Moreover, if it is likely that Luke was an eyewitness to this account, then it can be reasonably assumed that he did not use Josephus.

Hemer suggests two possibilities. First, it is possible that an earlier Theudas led a rebellion in the aftermath of Herod the Great’s death. Although he may have only inferred from Luke, Origen, writing in the second century, refers to Theudas as active before Jesus’ birth. Second, there is no reason to assume that Josephus’ account is more accurate than Luke’s. [65]

Acts 11:28: It has been claimed that there is no evidence of a worldwide famine under Claudius. [66] However, in the writings of Suetonius, there are numerous recurring famines in the years 41–54 A.D. and the one in Acts could well be among them. Regarding the point that no famine was worldwide, the famous letter of Claudius to Alexandria might hint at a possible answer. In the letter, he complained of certain Jews stirring up a “universal plague throughout the world.” [67] This reference cannot be interpreted literally, but is better understood as hyperbole. Perhaps Luke used it in such a way.

Acts 21:38: When the Romans in Jerusalem took Paul into protective custody, the commander of the cohort asked him if he was the Egyptian who had previously stirred up a revolt and led four thousand men into the wilderness. Josephus also refers to this minor incident and places it in the reign of Felix as does Luke. However, Josephus numbers the men at thirty thousand. The tendency of Josephus to exaggerate especially in regard to numbers is well noted by scholars. [68] Credibility on this account can safely be placed with Luke.

Paul’s Jerusalem Visits (Acts vs. Galatians)

Acts 9:26–30; 11:30–12:25; and Acts 15:1–29: According to Acts, Paul made three visits to Jerusalem between his conversion and the Apostolic Council in Acts chapter 15:1) from Damascus soon after his conversion (Acts 9:26–30), 2) from Antioch with Barnabas to deliver the famine collection (Acts 11:30–12:25), and 3) for the Council (Acts 15:1–29). [69] However, in his letter to the Galatians, Paul mentions only two visits: 1) from Damascus three years after his conversion (Galatians 1:18–19), and 2) from Antioch with Barnabas and Titus fourteen years later (Galatians 2:1–10). [70]

While the majority of scholars believe that the visits in Acts 15:1–29 and Galatians 2:1–10 are the same, Galatians chapter 2 lists the visit as Paul’s second, seemingly contradicting the account in Acts 15 which lists it as his third visit. [71] Given the nature of Paul’s argument in Galatians, it seems unlikely that he would have omitted a visit to Jerusalem: [72] therefore, many have concluded, that the visit recorded in Acts 15 cannot be reconciled with Paul’s account in Galatians 2. [73] However, upon closer inspection the visits recorded in Acts and Galatians are different partially due to the different purposes and perspectives of their respective authors. The better correlation is between Galatians 2:1–10 and Acts 11:30–12:25. Paul’s account emphasizes his justification as an apostle to the Galatians, but this need not be the sole reason for the visit to Jerusalem. Paul claims he went by revelation, not because of a summons from Jerusalem. His revelation may well have been Agabus’ prophecy of famine (Acts 11:28). Luke reports only the occasion, but considered the initiative of the Gentile church to the Jewish needy as an important event in the early church. Paul met with the leaders in Jerusalem and their injunction to remember the poor was the very thing I also was eager to do (Galatians 2:10). [74]

In Acts 9:26–30, Barnabas escorted Paul to the apostles in Jerusalem, while in Galatians 1:18–19, Paul indicates that he went to see Peter and saw no other apostle but James. Although Luke is more vague about whom the apostles were who met with Paul, his description need not conflict with Paul’s. In Galatians 1, Paul remained unknown by face to the churches of Judea, but in Acts 9 he moved openly, preached, and debated before being brought down to Caesarea. The point of contact between the two accounts is Paul’s “oddly limited and difficult” introduction to the church. Paul was not initially welcome in Jerusalem, but was seen as an outcast and rejected by Jew and Christian alike. Barnabas eased Paul into the presence of the brethren. Paul preached, yet most shunned him. [75]

Although the harmony between the Acts and Galatians accounts may not prove the historicity of Acts, it is crucial in meeting exaggerated claims to the contrary, where the assumption of conflict has been used incautiously to extrapolate to a wholesale condemnation of the Book of Acts.

Conclusion

“Is the Book of Acts Historically Reliable?” In attempting to answer this question, we began with a survey of scholarly criticism, emphasizing in particular the methodology of the Tübingen school, only to discover that critics have tended to derive their radical skepticism from an excessive dependency on theological interpretation and a neglect of sound historical method. As employed by Martin Dibelius and subsequently promulgated by Haenchen and Conzelmann, radical skepticism mutated following World War I into new forms of criticism, dealing with style, form, and redaction. The recent fascination with Luke’s theological tendencies is merely the most recent manifestation of a similar skepticism that began with Baur. Sherwin-White was compelled to comment on this phenomenon:

So, it is astonishing that while Graeco-Roman historians have been growing in confidence, the twentieth-century study of the Gospel narratives… has taken so gloomy a turn in the development of form-criticism. [76]

Over time research by archeologists and historians like Ramsay, Lightfoot, Harnack, Wikenhauser, et al., has exposed the highly subjective presuppositions of many critics. Today, scholars taking a fresh look at Luke are more apt to treat him seriously as a historian. Like Bruce and Hanson before them, Hemer, Hengel, and Marshall hold more traditional views of the Book of Acts.

Speeches in Acts comprise nearly thirty per cent of the book. Determining whether or not these speeches are literary devices or actual recollections of what was said is essential to establishing the historical reliability of the book as a whole. We determined that the actual speeches Luke recorded, were varied and appropriate to both the speaker and the intended audience leaving little cause for doubting their historical reliability. Far from being literary compositions sprung from the mind of Luke, the accounts actually preserved the essence of what was said in the finest Thucydidean tradition.

The we passages offer a unique opportunity to test Luke’s trustworthiness. It is widely acknowledged that the early part of Acts relies on sources other than the author himself. Likewise, the accounts in the first part of Acts are more fragmented and less detailed when contrasted to the we passages in the latter part of the book. The we passages preserve a much more vivid picture, including many details so insignificant as to be recorded only from an eyewitness perspective. An outstanding example is the shipwreck voyage to Rome that could only have been drawn from an actual participant. The Dibelius thesis that Luke created edifying stories to superimpose on an itinerary is simply untenable.

The Book of Acts is not without difficult passages, yet when compared to Josephus’ well-documented biases and tendencies to exaggerate, Luke’s careful accounting of events, people and their speeches is even more apparent. The seeming discrepancies between the accounts of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem in Acts and Galatians was addressed. While not proving the historical accuracy of the accounts, a very plausible understanding was given that preserves the integrity of the accounts in both books.

Fortunately, archaeologists and historians like Ramsay have contributed greatly in establishing a sound historical foundation for the Book of Acts. According to one scholar: “(T)he results of archaeological excavations help to constrain the imaginations of scholars who would mythologize the New Testament.” [77] Indeed, radical skeptics have been compelled to take note of the growing body of archaeological data that supports the narrative of Acts.

As F. F. Bruce put it:

When a writer’s accuracy is established by valid evidence, he gains the right to be treated as a reliable informant on matters coming within his scope which are not corroborated elsewhere. [78]

In the final analysis, we must conclude that the Book of Acts is historical reliable.

—End—

Notes

1. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture is taken from the New American Standard Bible, Copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1994 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.
2. Radical Skepticism was developed out of Enlightenment philosophy and eventually refined by the likes of Ferdin and Baur, among others.
3. Cadbury, Making, 357.
4. Ibid., 359. Cadbury, by applying the preface of Luke’s gospel to Acts (as many critics do) shows that Luke quite likely was not an eyewitness to all “the things fulfilled among us” but drew on sources for the earlier chapters while clearly implying involvement in the later ones.
5. Conzelmann, Acts, xxxix.
6. Redaction critics focus on alleged editorial (redactional) additions to the original accounts. Lüdemann thought that Luke engaged in extensive embellishment.
7. Lüdemann, Early, 257.
8. Ibid., 259.
9. J. M. Gilchrist, “The Historicity of Paul’s Shipwreck,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 61 (1996): 34.
10. Ibid., 35.
11. James Smith, The Shipwreck of St. Paul: With Dissertations on the Life and Writings of St. Luke and the Ships and Navigation of the Ancients, 3rd ed. (London: Longmans, Green), xxx.
12. Hemer, Setting, 134.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid., 136.
15. Ibid., 142, 331.
16. Smith, Voyage, 122–26.
17. Hemer, Setting, 146f.
18. Ibid., 153.
19. Ibid., 156.
20. For example, Hanson, Acts, 22, Gilchrist, Historicity, 37, Dibelius, Studies, 78, Alfred Wikenhauser, New Testament Introduction, tr. by Joseph Cunningham (New York: Herder and Herder, 1958), 328.
21. Frederick J. Foakes-Jackson, The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. V: The Acts of the Apostles, ed. By F.J. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, (London: Macmillan, 1933), 461.3.
22. Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964), 319.
23. Hemer, Setting, 253.
24. Ibid., 170-71.
25. Ibid., 162.
26. Foakes-Jackson, Beginnings, 455–58.
27. McRay, Archaeology, 226.
28. Hemer, Setting, 232–3.
29. Hanson, Acts, 8.
30. A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 51.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid., 55-56. This status changed in the early years of Nero (A.D. 54-68).
33. Baez-Camargo, Archaeological, 246.
34. Sherwin-White, Roman. 65.
35. Ibid., 178.
36. Ibid., 173.
37. Haenchen, Acts, 106.
38. McRay, Archaeology, 255.
39. Free, Archaeology, 274.
40. Sherwin-White, Roman, 93–94.
41. Hemer, Setting, 114–15, 231.
42. F. F. Bruce, “St Paul in Macedonia,” John Rylands University Library 61 (1978–9): 349-50.
43. William Tam and G. T. Griffith, Hellenistic Civilization (London: Arnold, 1927), 98.
44. Lightfoot, Discoveries, 292.
45. Free, Archaeology, 269.
46. Hanson, Acts, 3.
47. Ibid., 261.
48. McRay, Archaeology, 331–32.
49. Ibid.
50. Hemer, Setting, 235.
51. Lightfoot, Discoveries, 299.
52. Sherwin-White, Roman, 85.
53. Baez-Camargo, Archaeological, 245.
54. Ibid.
55. Lightfoot, Discoveries, 301.
56. Sherwin-White, Roman, 85.
57. Free, Archaeology, 271.
58. Ramsay, Bearing, 47–52.
59. Gerhard Krodel, Acts, Proclamation Commentaries (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 104.
60. Ibid., 105.
61. Ibid., 105-06.
62. Sherwin-White, Roman, 189.
63. Hanson, Acts, 12–13.
64. Hemer, Setting, 162.
65. Ibid.
66. Hanson, Acts, 13.
67. Sherwin-White, Roman, 51.
68. Hemer, Setting, 98.
69. Wikenhauser, Introduction, 332.
70. Ibid.
71. Joe Morgado, “Paul in Jerusalem: A Comparison of His Visits in Acts and Galatians,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37 (1994): 60-61.
72. In his letter Paul was defending his independence as an apostle from the leaders in Jerusalem. To leave out a visit would have aroused suspicion. The omission makes even less sense, because mention of the decree would be appropriate to the purpose of the letter as a whole; that salvation is not through circumcision but by faith.
73. Ibid.
74. Hemer, Setting, 248. Regarding the epistle to the Galatians, this synthesis assumes: 1) a “South Galatian” destination and 2) a date of composition prior to the Apostolic Council in Acts chapter 15.
75. Ibid., 249.
76. Sherwin-White, Roman, 187.
77. McRay, Archaeology, 18.
78. Bruce, “Historical Record?” 2578.