The book of Acts is one of the most fascinating books of the Bible. No other book matches its level of historical corroboration from both internal and external sources. The abundant evidence, that we shall sample in this essay, of Luke’s credibility and meticulousness as a historian, indirectly supports the credibility of Luke’s gospel (which is widely acknowledged to be written by the same author).
Luke claims to have been a travelling companion of Paul for much of his travels (Acts 16-10-17 and later again from Acts 20:5, travelling with Paul as far as Rome). This places Luke in Jerusalem in Acts 21 when Paul visited the Jerusalem leaders. Luke tells us that “all the elders [including James] were present” (Acts 21:18). Luke also implies that he remained in proximity to Paul during his two-year imprisonment in Caesarea Maritima, since he presents himself as being with Paul both immediately before and immediately after this imprisonment. During this time, Luke would undoubtedly have had ample access to the many living witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection, since Caesarea is only approximately 120 kilometers from Jerusalem, or about two to three days journey on foot (where many of the witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection resided). Luke’s acquaintance with the Jerusalem apostles thus puts him in a position to know what was being proclaimed concerning the nature and variety of the post-resurrection encounters with Jesus. Luke’s demonstrated care and meticulousness as an historian (together with the fact that he put his own neck on the line for the gospel) also provides some reason to think that Luke is sincerely representing what he believes the apostles experienced. Furthermore, various specific aspects of Luke’s gospel can be historically corroborated, which confirms that Luke, more than merely having access to those eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life, faithfully represented the testimony of those eyewitnesses. And yet, Luke represents the post-resurrection encounters as involving multiple sensory modes. Jesus appears to multiple individuals at once, and those encounters are not merely visual but are also auditory. Jesus engages the disciples in group conversation. The encounters are close-up and involve physical contact (Lk 24:39-40). At least one encounter involved passing Jesus a broiled fish (Lk 24:41-43). According to Acts 10:41, the disciples ate and drank with Jesus after his death. Jesus engages with Cleopas and his companion in an extended discourse, even participating with them in a study of the Scripture (Lk 24:27). Moreover, Acts indicates that the appearances were spread out over a forty-day time period – thus, the resurrection encounters were not one brief and confusing episode (Acts 1:3). Acts also contributes to the case that the disciples maintained an ongoing leadership role within the early church despite the hostile context of persecution (see my essay here for a fuller discussion of this subject). This evinces the sincerity of the apostles.
Moreover, given Luke’s access to Paul, together with his track-record of historical scrupulousness, this provides reason to think that Luke accurately represents Paul’s own testimony concerning his conversion and miracles. This argues strongly against the plausibility of Paul being sincerely mistaken. Indeed, Paul’s experience is alleged to have been multisensory — involving both a visual and auditory component (Acts 9:3-6, 22:6-10, 26:13-18; 1 Cor 9:1, 15:8). Moreover, it was intersubjective — affecting not only Paul, but also his travelling companions who were purportedly thrown to the ground, having heard the voice though seeing no one (Acts 9:7, 22:9; 26:14). Acts 22:9 indicates that Paul’s travelling companions nonetheless saw the light. Moreover, Paul was blinded by the experience for three days (Acts 9:8-9; 22:11) and later healed by Ananias who received a vision concerning Paul, and Paul a vision concerning Ananias (Acts 9:10-19; 22:12-16).
Furthermore, Paul claims to have performed miracles. In 2 Corinthians 12:12, he writes, “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works,” (cf. Rom 15:18-19) Note that this appeal is made to an audience who had in their midst individuals who doubted Paul’s apostolic credentials. It was risky to appeal to such miracles if there were no such convincing miracles to speak of that could be brought to the minds of his critics. Though Paul does not indicate what those signs purportedly involved, we read in Acts about the sort of miracles that Paul performed. For example, Luke describes a curse that Paul placed on the magician Elymas (who had opposed Paul and Barnabas, seeking to turn the Proconsul away from the faith) where Paul caused him to go blind on command, a feat apparently so convincing that it led to the conversion of the proconsul Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:9-12). Among Paul’s other miraculous signs, he healed a man who had been crippled since birth (Acts 14:8-10), cast out a spirit of divination from a slave girl (Acts 16:16-18), experienced a miraculous jailbreak in Philippi (Acts 16:25-26), healed many sick (Acts 19:11-12), raised Eutychus from the dead after his fall from the third story of a building (Acts 20:9-12), and healed the father of Publius, who lay sick with fever and dysentery, on Malta (Acts 28:7-9). As we shall see in this article, Luke was an incredibly scrupulous historian who had a high regard for historical accuracy. He also valued eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:2). The most probable source for the alleged miracles in Acts (besides those that he might have witnessed himself) is Paul.
When we consider the content of Paul’s testimony concerning his conversion experience on the Damascus road, together with his purported miracles, it seems to be difficult to account for on the supposition that he was sincerely mistaken — in particular given that he was not already predisposed to expect an appearance from the raised Christ. The argument for the reliability of Acts is also relevant to our assessment of the plausibility that Paul was a deceiver. Given Paul’s willingness to endure dangers, hardships, sufferings, floggings, beatings, stoning, shipwrecks, imprisonment and martyrdom, over an extended period of time, on account of the gospel (as abundantly documented by Acts), this goes a long way towards establishing his sincerity.
Thus, the book of Acts is of significant value to two of the major arguments for Christianity — namely, Jesus’ resurrection and the conversion and miracles of the apostle Paul.
The Focus of This Article
In 1791, the English clergyman William Paley published a book titled Horae Paulinae, or the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced. Therein, he postulated a class of evidence that he called “undesigned coincidences,” which he applied principally to the historicity of the book of Acts and the authenticity of the thirteen epistles attributed to Paul. Paley summarized the argument as follows [1]:
In examining, therefore, the agreement between ancient writings, the character of truth and originality is undesignedness; and this test applies to every supposition; for, whether we suppose the history to be true, but the letters spurious; or, the letters to be genuine, but the history false; or, lastly, falsehood to belong to both—the history to be a fable, and the letters fictitious: the same inference will result—that either there will be no agreement between them, or the agreement will be the effect of design. Nor will it elude the principle of this rule, to suppose the same person to have been the author of all the letters, or even the author both of the letters and the history; for no less design is necessary to produce coincidence between different parts of a man’s own writings, especially when they are made to take the different forms of a history and of original letters, than to adjust them to the circumstances found in any other writing.
Putting this into plainer language: When we look at how ancient writings line up with each other, the best evidence of their credibility is if the agreements between them appear to be incidental, casual, and unplanned. We have no less than thirteen letters attributed to the apostle Paul, which make contact with the history recorded in Acts at dozens of points. The epistles are, therefore, fertile ground for this type of analysis.
The focus of this article is the argument from undesigned coincidences, though recognizing that the examples provided in the text that follows are only a sample of the total that could be provided. In particular, I am limiting my dataset to only four of Paul’s letters — that is, his epistle to the Romans, his two epistles to the Corinthians, and that to the Galatians. As we shall see, even with this very limited dataset, and excluding the various striking coincidences that exist between Acts and 1 Thessalonians, or Colossians, or Ephesians, or the Pastoral epistles, one can adduce no less than forty undesigned coincidences between Acts and the Pauline corpus. The examples discussed below quite exhaustive of all those, of which I am aware, in those four letters. I have, however, excluded those coincidences that are relevant only to establishing the authenticity of epistles attributed to Paul (whether widely accepted or disputed) but which do not bear on the credibility of Acts. My hope is that this survey should give the reader a taste of just how extensive this class of evidence is in confirming the historicity of Acts.
Independence of Acts and the Epistles
The undesigned coincidences between Acts and Paul’s letters are even more evidentially significant than those between the gospels, since a strong case can be developed that Luke was not dependent upon the epistles (nor vice versa). Most likely, Luke had not read any of Paul’s letters. This means that, even in those instances where a coincidence is more direct than most of the cases to be discussed here, one may still have confidence that the coincidence is undesigned on the basis of the independence of the sources.
In this section, I shall lay out the evidence that Acts is independent from Romans, the Corinthian letters, and Galatians. One consideration that bears on the broad independence between Acts and these letters is that, though we can pinpoint quite precisely within Acts when these letters were composed (particularly Romans and the Corinthian epistles), Acts makes no mention whatever of Paul writing any epistles. In what follows, I will present a case for independence between Acts and each individual letter. Some of the points raised in this section will be repeated elsewhere in the article as they are of particular relevance to a given coincidence.
Galatians
A particularly strong case can be mounted for the independence of Acts and Galatians. For example, from reading Acts 9:23-25, one might reasonably come away with the first impression that Paul spent the entire period, which Luke glosses over as “many days,” in Damascus. However, Galatians 1:17 indicates that this time, which Paul informs us was three years in duration, included a journey into Arabia (though we do not know for how long). As Paley observes [2],
Beside the difference observable in the terms and general complexion of these two accounts, “the journey into Arabia,” mentioned in the epistle, and omitted in the history, affords full proof that there existed no correspondence between these writers. If the narrative in the Acts had been made up from the Epistle, it is impossible that this journey should have been passed over in silence; if the Epistle had been composed out of what the author had read of St. Paul’s history in the Acts, it is unaccountable that it should have been inserted.
Indeed, the omission in Acts concerning the journey into Arabia is quite surprising if the author of Acts was using Paul’s letter as a source. The accounts, though, are not mutually exclusive. The phrase “many days”, used by Luke in Acts 9:23 is most probably an idiomatic expression denoting an indefinite period of time. The equivalent phrase in Hebrew is used in 1 Kings 2:39, but the next verse indicates that those “many days” encompassed a three year period. It is also not particularly implausible that Luke simply was not aware of the journey into Arabia, or for some other reason chose not to write about it (perhaps it was too brief for Luke to consider it to be of significant note). Nonetheless, the apparent discrepancy between Acts and Galatians provides internal evidence of independence between the two sources. Paley offers another piece of evidence indicating independence [3]:
The journey to Jerusalem related in the second chapter of the Epistle (“then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem”) supplies another example of the same kind. Either this was the journey described in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, when Paul and Barnabas were sent from Antioch to Jerusalem, to consult the apostles and elders upon the question of the Gentile converts; or it was some journey of which the history does not take notice. If the first opinion be followed, the discrepancy in the two accounts is so considerable, that it is not without difficulty they can be adapted to the same transaction: so that, upon this supposition, there is no place for suspecting that the writers were guided or assisted by each other. If the latter opinion be preferred, we have then a journey to Jerusalem, and a conference with the principal members of the church there, circumstantially related in the Epistle, and entirely omitted in the Acts; and we are at liberty to repeat the observation, which we before made, that the omission of so material a fact in the history is inexplicable, if the historian had read the Epistle; and that the insertion of it in the Epistle, if the writer derived his information from the history, is not less so.
An additional reason for thinking that Acts and Galatians are independent is that Acts 9:27 indicates that, in Jerusalem, “Barnabas took him [Paul] and brought him to the apostles and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus.” Compare this to Galatians 1:18-19: “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother,” (emphasis added). On the surface, this appears to be a discrepancy. Of course, “the apostles” could be taken to refer to Peter and James (most scholars, including myself, are of the opinion that Galatians 1:19 identifies James the Lord’s brother as an apostle). We could also take it that Paul uses ‘saw’ to mean ‘conversed with’ or ‘met with,’ not that he did not even see any of the other apostles in a meeting, etc. We sometimes use ‘saw’ in this sense ourselves. One could imagine that perhaps Barnabas and Peter decided that they did not want to set Paul down in front of them like a tribunal and question him, so during that time he stayed, let us suppose, in someone’s home, met with James and Peter, and otherwise for those two weeks he was out talking and debating with Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 9:28-29), and eventually was rushed away due to a plot to kill him. In any case, the surface tension between these texts adds additional support for the thesis of independence.
Romans
Variations in name spelling between Acts and Romans suggest independence. For example, In Acts refers to Πρίσκιλλα (Acts 18:2, 18, 26), whereas Romans uses the form, Πρίσκα (Rom 16:3). Acts refers to Σώπατρος, identified as “son of Pyrrhus, a Berean” (Acts 20:4), whereas Romans calls this individual by the name Σωσίπατρος. Acts refers to a companion of Paul by the name of Σιλᾶς, whereas Romans 16:21 calls him Σιλουανός.
In Romans 15:24, Paul writes, “I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain, and to be helped on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a while.” Though Luke does mention Paul’s intention to visit Rome (Acts 19:21), there is no reference to his intention to visit Spain.
Romans 16:3-4 credits Priscilla and Aquila for risking their necks for Paul’s life, though there is no account in Acts of this episode, even though Priscilla and Aquila are significant figures in Acts 18.
In Romans 16:21-22, Paul sends greetings from those who are with him at the time: “Timothy, my fellow worker, greets you; so do Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen. I Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord. Gaius, who is host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer, and our brother Quartus, greet you.” These names only partially overlap with the list given in Acts 20:4: “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.” Moreover, Gaius of Derbe is most likely a different person from the Gaius mentioned in Romans, since the latter is described as Paul’s host, implying residence in Corinth or the surrounding region of Achaia. This Corinthian identification is strengthened by Paul’s note in 1 Corinthians 1:14 that he had baptized a Gaius there. Given that Gaius was among the most common Roman praenomina (first names), the duplication of the name is unsurprising. Yet this very fact supports the independence of Acts and Romans — had the author of Acts been drawing on Romans, it would be odd for him to list a Gaius from Derbe without connecting him to Corinth, where the Gaius of the epistle is clearly located. A later copyist, by contrast, would have been far more likely to harmonize the two figures by situating Gaius in Corinth rather than in Derbe.
Furthermore, a major theme in Romans, as well as the Corinthian letters, is the collection being prepared for the relief of the saints in Jerusalem, which we shall discuss in more detail later in this article (Rom 15:25-27; 1 Cor 16:1-4; 2 Cor 8:1-24; 2 Cor 9:1-15). Though Acts agrees with the implied order of travel, there is no explicit mention in Acts of fundraising as a purpose of Paul’s travels (though there is a cryptic allusion to it in Paul’s speech before Felix, in Acts 24:17: “Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings”). If Acts were using Romans, or the Corinthian epistles, as a source, one might expect the collection to be referred to more explicitly in Acts. The omission of any explicit reference to this collection evinces the independence of Acts from the epistles.
The Corinthian Epistles
As mentioned previously, the collection for the relief of the saints in Jerusalem looms large in the Corinthian epistles, but is never explicitly referred to in Acts. 1 Corinthians, like Romans, uses the form Πρίσκα to refer to the individual whom Acts identifies as Πρίσκιλλα (1 Cor 16:19). Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 1:14-17, Paul stresses that he baptized only Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanus. In Acts 18:8, Crispus is mentioned as a convert, though there is no reference to him being baptized by Paul. Apollos is a hugely significant figure in 1 Corinthians 1-4; 16:12, even causing factions within the church in Corinth, such that some were saying “I follow Paul”; others “I follow Apollos”; or “I follow Cephas”; and still others “I follow Christ.” But in Acts 18-24-19:1, Apollos appears only briefly as a learned Alexandrian who ministered in Corinth, though Acts does not mention the divisions he caused.
Various lines of evidence also converge to reveal that Acts and 2 Corinthians are independent. For example, Titus is mentioned throughout 2 Corinthians (2:13; 7:6, 13, 14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18), but is nowhere mentioned in Acts. Moreover, the list of Paul’s sufferings in 2 Corinthians 11:23-29 cannot be readily correlated with Acts (though it is by no means mutually exclusive). For example, 2 Corinthians 11:25 indicates that Paul endured three shipwrecks prior to the beginning of Acts 20 (when he wrote 2 Corinthians from Macedonia). Acts does not record any of those shipwrecks, but instead narrates an entirely different one in chapter 27. This presents no problem for Acts, since the author is clearly selective in what events in Paul’s life he recounts. Indeed, As Paley notes, referring to Acts 18-20, “the history of a period of sixteen years is comprised in less than three chapters; and of these, a material part is taken up with discourses.” [4] Moreover, Paul’s time in Tarsus (comprising several years) is skipped almost entirely (Acts 9:29-30; 11:25-26). Paul’s lengthy stay in Iconium is also glossed over very briefly: “So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands,” (Acts 14:3). Lengthy periods in Antioch are also described only in passing (Acts 11:25-26; 14:27-28).
Moreover, 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 emphasizes the involvement of Aretas IV in the plot to assassinate Paul in Damascus (but mentions no Jewish involvement), whereas Acts 9:23-25 emphasizes instead the involvement of the Jews (but makes no mention of Aretas). Presumably, the conspiracy involved both parties — nonetheless, the apparent discrepancy between these sources points to their independence. Taken cumulatively, it seems near certain that Luke did not use 2 Corinthians as a source for the composition of Acts.
Undesigned Coincidences
In what follows, I shall present no less than forty undesigned coincidences between Acts and these four epistles.
1. Changing Ministry Model
In Acts 18:1-4, Luke tells us that Paul worked during the week with his own hands as a tent-maker with Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day to reason with Jews and Greeks. In response to Silas and Timothy’s arrival from Macedonia, he is prompted to change his ministry model. The text says that Paul συνείχετο τῷ λόγῳ, literally, was wholly absorbed in preaching. What prompted this change? It apparently had something to do with Silas’ and Timothy’s arrival from Macedonia. 2 Corinthians 11:7-9 indicates that the brothers who arrived from Macedonia brought with them financial aid (this is further corroborated by Philippians 4:14-16). This apparently enabled him to devote himself more fully to ministry. Again, the accounts fit together in a casual way, that supports the historicity of Acts.
Undesigned coincidences between Acts and 2 Corinthians, such as the one given above, are further strengthened by the observation that there are several reasons to believe, as discussed earlier in this article, that these two sources are independent of one another. As Paley notes, “Now if we be satisfied in general concerning these two ancient writings, that the one was not known to the writer of the other, or not consulted by him; then the accordances which may be pointed out between them will admit of no solution so probable, as the attributing of them to truth and reality, as to their common foundation.” [5]
2. Baptism of Crispus and Gaius
In 1 Corinthians 1:14-16, Paul writes, “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)” Why did Paul baptize, by his own hands, Crispus and Gaius? William Paley notes that “It may be expected that those whom the apostle baptised with his own hands, were converts distinguished from the rest by some circumstance, either of eminence, or of connection with him.” [6] As we saw in the preceding discussion, Romans 16:23 indicates that Gaius provided hospitality for Paul and the church — and so had a particularly close connection with Paul. Moreover, according to 1 Corinthians 16:15, “the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia.” Thus, Paul’s letters confirm a special relationship with the two individuals Gaius and Stephanas. But what about Crispus? Acts 18:8 indicates that, while in Corinth, “Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.” Thus, we learn that Crispus was indeed someone of eminence, being the ruler of the synagogue. This illuminates why his household was one of only three households whom Paul baptized by his own hands.
3. Sending Timothy to Corinth
Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians while in Ephesus, in around 53 C.E. In 1 Corinthians 4:17, Paul writes, “That is why I sent (ἔπεμψα) you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ…” The verb πέμπω is in the aorist (past) tense, indicating that Timothy has already been sent to Corinth from Ephesus at the time of Paul’s writing. In the account in Acts, however, we read that Timothy was sent, along with Erastus, into Macedonia, though the account in Acts makes no mention of Timothy’s intended destination being Corinth: “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.”
Given Paul’s stated intention to pass through the province of Achaia (where Corinth was the capital), it is a reasonable inference that this was ultimately Timothy’s intended destination, as shown on the map below. Macedonia was on the overland route to Corinth from Ephesus.
However, Acts only records Timothy being sent into Macedonia, since this was his immediate province to which he was directed. Nonetheless, as Paley explains, “One thing at least concerning it is certain: that if this passage of St. Paul’s history had been taken from his letter, it would have sent Timothy to Corinth by name, or expressly however into Achaia.” [7]
That Timothy went to Macedonia on route to Corinth (and apparently was joined by Paul prior to their going to Corinth) is also supported by 2 Corinthians 1:1, which indicates that Paul and Timothy were co-authors of this second epistle (which, as we shall see later in this article, we have independent reason to believe was written from Macedonia). That Timothy did, in fact, make it to Corinth is also confirmed in an indirect way by Acts 20:4, which lists Timothy as one of those companions who were with Paul upon his departure from Greece.
4. If Timothy Comes
In 1 Corinthians 16:10, we read, “When Timothy comes, see that you put him at ease among you…” The conjunction Ἐὰν introduces the subjunctive mood (literally, “if Timothy comes…”). Even though Paul has already sent Timothy at the time of his writing (indicated by 1 Cor 4:17, as discussed in the preceding section), this indicates that Paul nonetheless expects his letter will arrive first. Timothy must, therefore, have taken a route from Ephesus to Corinth that is less direct than that taken by the letter. The most direct way for Paul to send the letter would be across the Aegean sea, and we would thus infer that Timothy must have gone the indirect, overland route, up through Macedonia (meanwhile Paul remained behind in Ephesus to write 1 Corinthians), as depicted in the map shown previously.
Acts 19:21-22 indicates that Timothy was, in fact, sent from Ephesus to Macedonia, precisely the route we might predict given those subtle clues in 1 Corinthians.
5. Erastus of Corinth
It is also noteworthy to observe that Paul’s travelling companion up through Macedonia, according to Acts 19:22, was Erastus. According to Romans 16:23, Erastus was the city treasurer of the city that Paul was writing from, which we have established on independent grounds to be Corinth. There is even an archaeological discovery, shown below, which confirms the historicity of Erastus — a pavement slab that was recovered from the ruins of ancient Corinth, which bears the inscription in Latin, “Erastus, in return for his aedileship, laid (the pavement) at his own expense.”
The identification of this Erastus with the individual mentioned in the New Testament is disputed, particularly since the inscription calls Erastus aedile, a Roman civic office, whereas the New Testament describes him as the city treasurer. It is plausible, however, that while the inscription commemorates Erastus as aedile, Paul’s epistle reflects him at a later stage of his career, serving as the treasurer of Corinth. Erastus was also not an especially rare name in the Greco-Roman world. Regardless, the primary point I am driving at here does not depend on the identification of the Erastus from the inscription. It is sufficient for our purpose that the epistle to the Romans identifies Erastus as being the city treasurer of Corinth, and hence someone from the city.
How fitting, then, that on his way up through Macedonia with the intention of going to Corinth, Timothy is said to be travelling with an individual whom we know independently was a resident of Corinth.
6. Paul’s Intention to Visit Rome
In his epistle to the Romans, Paul speaks more than once of his desire to visit Rome: “I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles,” (Rom 1:13). Again, “But now, since I no longer have any room for work in these regions, and since I have longed for many years to come to you, I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain, and to be helped on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a while…When therefore I have completed this and have delivered to them what has been collected, I will leave for Spain by way of you,” (Rom 15:23-24, 28). Compare this text to Acts 19:21: “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.'” Paley remarks,
Let it be observed that our epistle purports to have been written at the conclusion of St. Paul’s second journey into Greece: that the quotation from the Acts contains words said to have been spoken by St. Paul at Ephesus, some time before he set forwards upon that journey. Now I contend that it is impossible that two independent fictions should have attributed to St. Paul the same purpose,—especially a purpose so specific and particular as this, which was not merely a general design of visiting Rome after he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, and after he had performed a voyage from these countries to Jerusalem. The conformity between the history and the epistle is perfect.
In the book of Romans, Paul indicates that he has intended often for many years to come visit Rome. In Acts 19:21, we find Paul expressing his desire to visit Rome a considerable time before the composition of this epistle (probably about a year or so prior). Paley further argues that the author of Acts does not appear to have based his account on the epistle to the Romans. In particular, “If the passage in the epistle was taken from that in the Acts, why was Spain put in? If the passage in the Acts was taken from that in the epistle, why was Spain left out? If the two passages were unknown to each other, nothing can account for their conformity but truth.” [8]
7. The Collection for the Relief of the Saints in Jerusalem
A major theme in Romans and the Corinthian epistles is the collection for the relief of the saints in Jerusalem. The absence of references to this collection in Acts is a major line of evidence that Acts is not textually dependent on these letters. In 1 Corinthians 16:1-4, Paul writes, “Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. 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.” In 16:5ff, Paul indicates that he plans to go to Macedonia and, from there, to travel to the Roman province of Achaia (of which Corinth was the capital city). Paul instructs the Corinthians to have their portion of the collection ready for his arrival.
Paul also mentions this collection in another epistle composed not long before Romans, while in Macedonia: “We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints…” (2 Cor 8:1-4). Thus, at the time of the writing of 2 Corinthians, Paul was apparently in Macedonia, having collected money, and was intending to travel to Corinth from there. We saw previously that 1 Corinthians was composed in Acts 19:22, when Paul remained in Ephesus after sending Timothy through Macedonia. Now we are able to also situate the writing of 2 Corinthians in Acts 20:1, when Paul was in Macedonia. In the following chapter in this letter, he further adds (2 Cor 9:1-5),
“Now it is superfluous for me to write to you about the ministry for the saints, for I know your readiness, of which I boast about you to the people of Macedonia, saying that Achaia has been ready since last year. And your zeal has stirred up most of them. But I am sending the brothers so that our boasting about you may not prove empty in this matter, so that you may be ready, as I said you would be. Otherwise, if some Macedonians come with me and find that you are not ready, we would be humiliated – to say nothing of you – for being so confident. So I thought it necessary to urge the brothers to go on ahead to you and arrange in advance for the gift you have promised, so that it may be ready as a willing gift, not as an exaction.”
Thus, Paul advises the Corinthians that he has been bragging about them to the Macedonians, and that he intends to bring some people from Macedonia with him to Corinth — and he would not want them to be ashamed by not having their portion of the offering ready for his arrival.
While in Macedonia, Paul wrote to the Romans: “At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem bringing aid to the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem. For they were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material blessings,” (Rom 15:25-27). Paul apparently wrote this letter when he had finished gathering a collection from Macedonia and Achaia and was intending to deliver the funds to Jerusalem. Thus, we can situate the writing of Romans to Acts 20:3, when Paul spent three months in Corinth (in Achaia). In 1 Corinthians, Paul is not sure whether he himself will be in charge of escorting the money to Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:4), though this matter appears to have been resolved by the time he wrote Romans (Rom 15:25).
This order of travel adduced from Romans and the Corinthian epistles comports perfectly with the order of travel reported by Acts, though fund raising is not mentioned there as the purpose of Paul’s journey. Paul’s intended itinerary is given in Acts 19:21: “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.'” Notice that all of the placements of the letters within Acts are adduced from clues that relate to the collection Paul is gathering, which is never explicitly mentioned in the book of Acts. According to Acts 21:17ff, Paul arrived in Jerusalem, and Paul was taken into custody by Roman soldiers and imprisoned (v. 27ff). While giving a speech before the Roman procurator of Judea, Felix, Paul makes a cryptic and indirect allusion to this collection: “Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings.”
8. Representatives of the Gentile Churches
Relating to the preceding example, let us now turn to Acts 20:1-4, which provides the longest list in the book of Acts of companions of Paul all travelling somewhere at the same time:
After the uproar 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.
The respective locations of the individuals listed here are very carefully noted together with their names. It is quite plausible that these various individuals are intended as representatives of the various gentile churches who were contributing to the collection that Paul was gathering at this time for the relief of the saints in Jerusalem. We see throughout Paul’s letters that he desires that everyone know that he is blameless about money and has no agenda of extorting people. This is a major theme in the Corinthian epistles in particular. In 1 Corinthians 16:3-4, Paul writes concerning the gathered collection, “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.” In other words, Paul suggests that someone else, rather than himself, accompany the Corinthians’ contribution to Jerusalem — he will go only if it seems appropriate. It seems likely, therefore, that Paul was accompanied from Greece to Jerusalem by this large group to demonstrate that he had not absconded with any of the collection and to provide more security as he made the journey. Acts never mentions the collection at all, except in Paul’s cryptic allusion to bringing alms to his nation in his speech before Felix in Acts 24:17.
9. Paul’s Companions in Corinth
In Romans 16:21-23, Paul provides a list of his companions in Corinth: “Timothy, my fellow worker, greets you; so do Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen. I Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord. Gaius, who is host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer, and our brother Quartus, greet you.” Strikingly, Sopater and Timothy are two names also listed among Paul’s travelling companions in Acts 20:4. As discussed previously, Gaius of Derbe is probably a different individual from the Gaius mentioned in Romans, since the latter individual is said to be Paul’s host, implying he lived in Corinth or nearby Achaia. This is likely the same Gaius as the one baptized by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:14, suggesting a strong Corinthian connection. Gaius was, in fact, one of the most common Roman praenomina (first names) in antiquity. This also supports the independence of Acts and Romans — if the author of Acts were using the epistle to the Romans as a source for the composition of his own narrative, it is peculiar that he listed an individual by the same name as the figure mentioned in Romans, even though these are separate individuals. A copyist would be more likely to link an individual bearing the name of Gaius to Corinth rather than Derbe.
Note that Sopater (Σώπατρος), which was a much less frequent name, is a shortened or contracted form of Sosipater (Σωσίπατρος), functioning much like a nickname. This slight difference in spelling between Acts and Romans again indicates that Luke is probably not using Romans as a source for the composition of his narrative (nor vice versa). Further supporting this is that the names only partially overlap between Acts and Romans. Moreover, of the remaining five names given in Acts, three are mentioned in Paul’s prison epistles, which were composed in Rome — namely, Trophimus (2 Tim 4:20), Aristarchus (Col 4:10, Philem 24), and Tychicus (Eph 6:21; Col 4:7; 2 Tim 4:12). Thus, these three individuals apparently ended up travelling with Paul as far as Rome.
10. As I Directed the Churches of Galatia
In 1 Corinthians 16:1, Paul writes, “Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do.” According to Acts, the last churches visited by Paul prior to his coming to Ephesus were in Galatia and Phrygia (Acts 18:23). Thus, it makes sense that he left those instructions there. That visit was a couple of years prior to his writing 1 Corinthians. However, there is no indication that Paul had visited any other churches in the interim. Thus, Galatians remained the last place where he had delivered these instructions. This is further confirmed by a passing comment in Galatians 2:10 that Paul was eager to “remember the poor,” suggesting that he had in fact spoken on this subject in Galatia.
11. All the Way Around to Illyricum
In Romans 15:18-20, Paul writes, “For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience – by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God – so that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ.” As shown on the map below, Illyricum was a province to the northwest of Macedonia.
Paul goes on to talk about how he hopes to visit Rome and ultimately travel to Spain, which was still further west than either Rome or Illyricum. Paul appears to be giving an eastern and northwestern reference point concerning the geographical sleep of his ministry up to this point, followed by his anticipation of travelling even further west, to Rome and Spain.
For reasons discussed previously, we can pinpoint the writing of Romans to Acts 20:3, when Paul spent three months in Corinth, in Greece. Just prior to this point, there would have been opportunity for Paul to have journeyed as far northwest as Illyricum. Indeed, this journey through Macedonia is described by Acts 20:2 in general terms: “When he had gone through these regions and had given them much encouragement, he came to Greece.” The Greek here, παρακαλέσας αὐτοὺς λόγῳ πολλῷ, literally means “having exhorted them with many words.” It is quite plausible, then, that Paul traveled around in Macedonia and reached as far as the northwestern border with Illyricum. However, in the earlier journey to Macedonia (recounted in Acts 16:9-17:14) , there would have been no such opportunity. Indeed, Paul’s journey is charted along the eastern border of Macedonia, with the cities precisely named as Philippi, Amphipolis, Apollonia, Thessalonica, and Berea. Paley summarizes, “It must have been…upon that second visit [to Macedonia], if at all, that he approached Illyricum; and this visit, we know, almost immediately preceded the writing of the epistle. It was natural that the apostle should refer to a journey which was fresh in his thoughts.” [9]
This coincidence that the epistle to the Romans appears to have been written during Paul’s three month stint in Greece in Acts 20:3 with the fact that Acts 20:2 allows for travel as far northwest as Illyricum is unlikely to be the result of clever contrivance, particularly since we inferred when, within Acts, the epistle to the Romans was written on entirely independent grounds. Moreover, the province of Illyricum is never explicitly mentioned in Acts at all.
12. Divisions in Corinth
In 1 Corinthians 1:10-12, Paul addresses divisions within the Corinthian church:
10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”
What was the cause of these factions among the Corinthians? A clue as to Paul’s meaning is provided by 1 Corinthians 1:17: “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” Another clue is provided by 2 Corinthians 10:9-10, in which Paul writes, “I do not want to appear to be frightening you with my letters. For they say, ‘His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account.'” Apparently Paul, though a gifted writer, was not a great orator. In 2 Corinthians 11:5-6, moreover, Paul adds, “Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not so in knowledge; indeed, in every way we have made this plain to you in all things.” This suggests that the factions at Corinth may have been a result of the superiority of Apollos and Cephas as public speakers. This makes sense since Corinth, as a Greek city, was naturally impressed by flashy rhetoric and persuasive speeches. When we turn over to Acts 18:24-28, we discover that Apollos was, in fact, a gifted orator, consistent with those clues in 1 Corinthians:
24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 27 And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, 28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.
The text indicates that Apollos was known at Corinth for his skills as a public speaker and debater. The casual consistency between 2 Corinthians and Acts supports the historicity of Acts.
13. Silas’ and Timothy’s Preaching in Corinth
According to Acts 18:1,5: “After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth…When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus.” Compare this with 2 Corinthians 1:19: “For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom we proclaimed among you, Silvanus and Timothy and I, was not Yes and No, but in him it is always Yes.” As discussed earlier, Paul wrote this epistle from Macedonia. The reference to Silvanus (i.e., Silas) and Timothy, therefore, matches the history. Though this coincidence is more direct than many of those discussed in this article, it must be remembered (as has previously been established) that Acts and 2 Corinthians are independent sources. Furthermore, Acts and 2 Corinthians use a different spelling for the name. 2 Corinthians calls him by the name Σιλουανός, whereas Acts uses the contracted name Σιλας. Paley remarks, “The similitude of these two names, if they were the names of different persons, is greater than could easily have proceeded from accident; I mean that it is not probable, that two persons placed in situations so much alike should bear names so nearly resembling each other. On the other hand, the difference of the name in the two passages negatives the supposition of the passages, or the account contained in them, being transcribed either from the other.” [10]
It may also be observed that Paul’s first epistle to the Thessalonians indicates that it was sent by Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy (1 Thess 1:1). This further confirms that they were the same person, since we know from Acts that Silas and Timothy were involved in Paul’s ministry in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1,10,15). This actually constitutes another undesigned coincidence, since Acts 17:1,10 only says explicitly that Paul & Silas were involved in Paul’s ministry in Thessalonica. It is only in Acts 17:14-15, when we are told that Silas & Timothy remained behind in Berea, that it is implied that presumably Timothy had been there the whole time, even though he went unmentioned in connection to Paul’s ministry in Thessalonica. 1 Thessalonians also further supports Acts’ connection with 2 Corinthians, as discussed above, since we have independent grounds for thinking that Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians from Corinth, at a time when Timothy had recently returned from Macedonia with a report on the spiritual wellbeing of the Thessalonian Christians (1 Thess 3:1-5), which correlates with the arrival of Silas and Timothy in Corinth from Macedonia in Acts 18:5.
14. Letters of Recommendation
In 2 Corinthians 3:1, Paul writes, “Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you?” (emphasis added). Compare this to Acts 18:27: “And when he [Apollos] wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him.” Recall that Corinth is the capital of Achaia. McGrew remarks, “This comment dovetails with the statement in Acts that, when Apollos first went to Corinth, he was sent with letters of recommendation from the believers at Ephesus. It is possible that Paul does not have Apollos personally in mind when writing this in II Corinthians. In that case, the verse fits with Acts by alluding to letters of recommendation as a practice in the early church. But there is also plausibility to the suggestion that some in the Corinthian church were still comparing Paul with Apollos and that Paul, though not wishing to attack Apollos, nonetheless in his frustration alludes to the fact that he, unlike ‘some,’ does not need such letters to commend himself.” [11]
15. Paul and Apollos at Corinth
In 1 Corinthians 3:6, Paul writes, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.” Paul’s wording implies that Apollos came and ministered at Corinth only after Paul’s departure from Achaia, but before the composition of 1 Corinthians. This comports with the timeline supplied in Acts (18:1,24-28; 19:1). As discussed previously, we have strong independent grounds for thinking that 1 Corinthians was written from Ephesus, in Acts 19:22, after Paul had sent Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia. Thus, Acts and 1 Corinthians correlate quite precisely. The two writings, however, refer to Apollos in entirely different contexts and for unrelated purposes. It is, therefore, very unlikely that one text was borrowing from the other. In Acts, Apollos is noted for knowing only John’s baptism and for his association with Aquila and Priscilla, while in the epistle he is mentioned only in connection with divisions at Corinth and then in the statement, “I planted, Apollos watered.” That second phrase unintentionally reflects the true chronological order of events recorded in Acts, but Paul introduces it solely to make a theological point that growth ultimately comes from God.
16. Paul in Macedonia
Paul indicates that he is writing 2 Corinthians from Macedonia while on route to Corinth (2 Cor 9:1-5). This would place it very shortly following the riot in Ephesus, hence at approximately Acts 20:1. This appears to have been on Paul’s mind in 2 Corinthians 1:8-10: “For we do not want you to be unaware, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead. He delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us. On him we have set our hope that he will deliver us again.”
17. A Door of Opportunity
We have already established that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians from Ephesus. This is indicated by Paul’s statement that “I will stay in Ephesus until Pentecost,” (1 Cor 16:8) together with other clues such as the fact that he sends greetings from Aquila and Priscilla, who are known to have been in Ephesus at this time. We have also previously connected the composition of this letter to Acts 19:22 at the time when he sent Timothy and Erastus through Macedonia while Paul remained behind in Asia Minor.
In 1 Corinthians 16:9, Paul explains that the reason he will remain in Ephesus is that “a wide door for effective work has opened to me.” This corresponds to the narrative in Acts 19:20: “So the word of the Lord continued to increase and prevail mightily.” Moreover, Demetrius the silversmith, in his complaint against Paul to the other workmen, states, “And you see and hear that not only in Ephesus but in almost all of Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away a great many people, saying that gods made with hands are not gods,” (Acts 19:26).
18. Many Adversaries
1 Corinthians 16:9 indicates that not only had a wide door for effective work opened for Paul in Ephesus, but that “there are many adversaries.” This again comports with Luke’s statement that “when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus,” (Acts 19:9).
19. Priscilla and Aquila
In 1 Corinthians 16:19, Paul writes, “The churches of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Prisca, together with the church in their house, send you hearty greetings in the Lord.” Since 1 Corinthians was composed in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8), this indicates that Aquila and Priscilla were in Ephesus with Paul at the time of his writing. In Romans 16:3-5, Paul writes, “Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well. Greet also the church in their house.” By the time Paul wrote Romans, he evidently believed that Aquila and Priscilla had made it to Rome. The reference to Priscilla and Aquila risking their necks for Paul’s life suggests that Acts and Romans are independent of one another, since there is no account of this episode in Acts.
In Romans 15:25, Paul writes, “At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem bringing aid to the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem. For they were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material blessings.” Since Paul had apparently finished collecting money for the relief of the saints in Jerusalem (which was still in process at the time of his writing 1 Corinthians), this indicates that Romans must have been written after 1 Corinthians. And Paul’s language suggests that he is about to set off for Jerusalem to take the collection there. Thus, we can infer that, between the composition of 1 Corinthians and completing the collection for the relief of the Jerusalem saints (and the writing of Romans), Priscilla and Aquila left Ephesus and returned to Rome, from which they had previously been expelled by degree of the emperor Claudius (Acts 18:2). We can also surmise that there had to have been sufficient time for Paul to have learned of their arrival in Rome and that they were hosting a house church there.
Turning to Acts, we may surmise that Aquila and Priscilla were in Corinth around 50-51 C.E., when Paul first arrived. Claudius’ expulsion of the Jews from Rome is typically dated to 49 C.E. (Suetonius, Claudius 25). Acts 18:18-19 indicates that they left Corinth with Paul and settled in Ephesus. They were apparently still there during Paul’s third missionary journey (52-55 C.E). This is confirmed by 1 Corinthians 16:19, which was written from Ephesus. The epistle to the Romans was written from Corinth, around 57 C.E., close to the end of Paul’s third journey, just prior to his trip to Jerusalem. By this time, Romans 16:3-4 greets Priscilla and Aquila as being back in Rome. There is a gap of about two years between the writing of 1 Corinthians and Romans. Travel between Ephesus and Rome by sea would only take a few weeks. This means that there would have been ample time for Priscilla and Aquila to leave Ephesus following Paul’s stay there, and relocate to Rome following the death of Claudius (54 C.E.) and establish a church in their home by the time of the composition of Romans. This approximately two-year window between the composition of 1 Corinthians and Romans easily accommodates their return to Rome. McGrew explains, “Acts does not introduce them into the story too late for them to be referred to in the greetings in I Corinthians, and it places them in Ephesus at approximately the right time.” [12] The fact that Acts makes no reference to their return to Rome following the lifting of the decree also supports the independence of Acts and Romans. Further evidence for independence comes from the variant spelling of the name Πρίσκα / Πρίσκιλλα between the Pauline letters and Acts.
20. Journeying to Jerusalem
In Romans 15:30-32, Paul writes, “I appeal to you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf, that I may be delivered from the unbelievers in Judea, and that my service for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints, so that by God’s will I may come to you with joy and be refreshed in your company.” Compare this to Acts 20:22-24: And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me. But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.” Both passages represent a similar state of Pauls mind concerning his upcoming journey to Jerusalem. Paley comments,
Let it be remarked, that it is the same journey to Jerusalem which is spoken of in these two passages; that the epistle was written immediately before St. Paul set forwards upon this journey from Achaia; that the words in the Acts were uttered by him when he had proceeded in that journey as far as Miletus, in Lesser Asia. This being remembered, I observe that the two passages, without any resemblance between them that could induce us to suspect that they were borrowed from one another, represent the state of St. Paul’s mind, with respect to the event of the journey, in terms of substantial agreement. They both express his sense of danger in the approaching visit to Jerusalem: they both express the doubt which dwelt upon his thoughts concerning what might there befall him.
The only difference here is that in Acts Paul is evidently more inclined towards despondency than he is in his epistle to the Romans, in which he retains the hope “that by God’s will I may come to you with joy and be refreshed in your company,” (Rom 15:32). Compare this with Acts 20:23, in which Paul states, a few months after writing his epistle to the Romans, that “the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me.” This also points to independence — if Acts was based on Romans (or vice versa), this difference in Paul’s optimism is difficult to account for.
21. Paul’s Two Visits to Corinth
1 Corinthians 2:1-2 indicates that Paul had already visited Corinth prior to writing the epistle: “And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” Paul also states his intention to visit Corinth a second time: “But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I will find out not the talk of these arrogant people but their power,” (1 Cor 4:19). Paley observes,
Now the history relates that Saint Paul did in fact visit Corinth twice; once as recorded at length in the eighteenth, and a second time as mentioned briefly in the twentieth chapter of the Acts. The same history also informs us, (Acts 20:1,) that it was from Ephesus Saint Paul proceeded upon his second journey into Greece. Therefore, as the epistle purports to have been written a short time preceding that journey; and as Saint Paul, the history tells us, had resided more than two years at Ephesus, before he set out upon it, it follows that it must have been from Ephesus, to be consistent with the history, that the epistle was written; and every note of place in the epistle agrees with this supposition.
Given our determination that 1 Corinthians was composed around Acts 19:22 (which is inferred on entirely different grounds), these allusions accord with the book of Acts, since Paul had in fact visited Corinth one time prior to this time (in chapter 18) and would go on to visit Corinth a second time in chapter 20. Moreover, the account in Acts 19:21 indicates that “after these events Paul resolved in the Spirit to pass through Macedonia and Achaia and go to Jerusalem.” This confirms that the intention to go to Achaia (where Corinth was the capital) was on Paul’s mind at the time of writing 1 Corinthians. These observations, once again, confirm the historicity of Acts.
An apparent discrepancy with Acts is created by Paul’s statement that “This is the third time I am coming to you (Τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς),” (2 Cor 13:1). If, as I have argued previously, Paul had only visited the Corinthians one time prior to the composition of this letter, the epistle is at odds with the history in Acts. An acceptable rendering of Paul’s language in 2 Corinthians 13:1 is that this was the third time he was prepared or ready to come to them. There are internal clues that suggest the plausibility of this reading. For one thing, Paul discusses a previously aborted visit to Corinth earlier in the epistle: “Because I was sure of this, I wanted to come to you first, so that you might have a second experience of grace. I wanted to visit you on my way to Macedonia, and to come back to you from Macedonia and have you send me on my way to Judea. Was I vacillating when I wanted to do this? Do I make my plans according to the flesh, ready to say ‘Yes, yes’ and ‘No, no’ at the same time?” (2 Cor 1:15-17). Paul also alludes to this issue in 2 Corinthians 2:1-2: “For I made up my mind not to make another painful visit to you. For if I cause you pain, who is there to make me glad but the one whom I have pained?” Apparently Paul had resolved not to come prematurely in a manner that would make the encounter grievous. In view of this cancelled visit, Paul could legitimately assert that this was the “third time” he was coming.
This interpretation is also supported by additional clues. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 13:2, “as if I were present the second time … if I come again, I will not spare.” This indicates that Paul’s subsequent visit would be only his second appearance in Corinth. Moreover, 2 Corinthians 1:15 refers to giving the Corinthians a “second benefit,” again confirming only a single prior visit. Finally, 2 Corinthians 12:14 employs the parallel phrase, “Behold the third time I am ready to come to you” (Ἰδοὺ τρίτον τοῦτο ἑτοίμως ἔχω ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς). This clarifies Paul’s meaning in 2 Corinthians 13:1. Paley contends that this reconciled variation, provides positive evidence of truth — though this is more relevant to the Pauline authorship of 2 Corinthians than it is to the historicity of Acts [13]:
Now, in historical researches, a reconciled inconsistency becomes a positive argument. First, because an impostor generally guards against the appearance of inconsistency; and secondly, because, when apparent inconsistencies are found, it is seldom that any thing but truth renders them capable of reconciliation. The existence of the difficulty proves the want or absence of that caution, which usually accompanies the consciousness of fraud; and the solution proves, that it is not the collusion of fortuitous propositions which we have to deal with, but that a thread of truth winds through the whole, which preserves every circumstance in its place.
22. A Change of Plans
As discussed previously, Paul explains that he had initially intended to visit Corinth before going through Macedonia (2 Cor 1:15-16) and explains the reason for his change in plan (2 Cor 1:23-2:4). Referring to his earlier rebuke of the incestuous relationship (cf. 1 Cor 5), Paul writes, “For I made up my mind not to make another painful visit to you. For if I cause you pain, who is there to make me glad but the one whom I have pained? And I wrote as I did, so that when I came I might not suffer pain from those who should have made me rejoice, for I felt sure of all of you, that my joy would be the joy of you all. For I wrote to you out of much affliction and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to cause you pain but to let you know the abundant love that I have for you,” (2 Cor 2:1-4). This implies that his decision to delay his visit to Corinth (by going through Macedonia first) was made prior to writing 1 Corinthians. This is further supported by Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 16:5, “I will visit you after passing through Macedonia, for I intend to pass through Macedonia.” Paley comments, “The supplemental sentence, ‘for I do pass through Macedonia,’ imports that there had been some previous communication upon the subject of the journey; and also that there had been some vacillation and indecisiveness in the apostle’s plan: both which we now perceive to have been the case.” [14]
These indications in the Corinthian epistles align with Acts 19:21, in which Paul resolves to pass through Macedonia first before visiting Achaia, and sends Timothy and Erastus ahead into Macedonia. This plan is brought to fruition in Acts 20:1-2. Since, as discussed previously, Timothy was already sent prior to the writing of 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 4:17), this entails that the change of plans must have occurred before Paul wrote this letter. It is striking that Acts mentions Paul’s resolve to pass through Macedonia followed by Achaia, right as he was composing 1 Corinthians, just as one might expect from those indicators in 2 Corinthians. But Acts does not connect Paul’s resolve to the incestuous relationship in Corinth, nor to the writing of 1 Corinthians (nor does it, for that matter, so much as mention Paul writing a letter). This incidental dovetailing between Acts and the Corinthian epistles supports the credibility of Acts.
23. Working with Our Own Hands
In 1 Corinthians 4:11-12, Paul says that “To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are poorly dressed and buffeted and homeless, and we labor, working with our own hands.” This indicates that, right up to the present time of his writing (from Ephesus), Paul was working manually to support himself with his own hands. When Acts narrates Paul’s stay in Ephesus (Acts 19), there is no reference to his working with his hands. However, when Paul later addresses the Ephesian elders at Miletus, he reminds them that “You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me.” Consistent with the epistle, this indicates that Paul did in fact continue his manual labor at Ephesus (the city from which he wrote 1 Corinthians). Observe that Acts confirms Paul’s manual labor in Ephesus indirectly and retrospectively. It is completely unmentioned in the direct narrative of Paul’s time in Ephesus, but is alluded to in Paul’s farewell speech that was delivered later. If the author of Acts used 1 Corinthians as a source, it seems more likely that this detail would have been featured in the main account of Ephesus, rather than obliquely in a later reference. This supports the historicity of Acts.
24. Corinth as the Limit of Paul’s Progress
In 2 Corinthians 10:14-16, Paul says, “For we are not overextending ourselves, as though we did not reach you. For we were the first to come all the way to you with the gospel of Christ. We do not boast beyond limit in the labors of others. But our hope is that as your faith increases, our area of influence among you may be greatly enlarged, so that we may preach the gospel in lands beyond you…” This implies that Corinth was, up to this point, the boundary of Paul’s travels. The account in Acts 16-18 depicts Paul’s travels as taking him along the Macedonian coast (Amphipolis, Apollonia, Thessalonica, Berea) followed by Athens and finally Corinth, where he remained for a year and a half prior to returning to Asia Minor. Consistent with the epistle, Corinth was indeed Paul’s last stop and therefore the natural boundary of his progress at that time. Paley comments, “He could not have said the same thing, viz. ‘I hope hereafter to visit the regions beyond you,’ in an epistle to the Philippians, or in an epistle to the Thessalonians, inasmuch as he must be deemed to have already visited the regions beyond them, having proceeded from those cities to other parts of Greece. But from Corinth he returned home: every part therefore beyond that city might properly be said, as it is said in the passage before us, to be unvisited. Yet is this propriety the spontaneous effect of truth, and produced without meditation or design.”
25. Becoming as a Jew to win Jews
In 1 Corinthians 9:20-22, Paul writes, “To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.” That this was Paul’s principle is confirmed by two historical examples recounted in Acts. The first of those (which happened prior to the composition of the epistle) is the circumcision of Timothy: “Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek,” (Acts 16:3). The second of those instances is Paul’s joining in of the purification rites at Jerusalem, an event that took place after the composition of the epistle (Acts 21:23-26).
It seems quite unlikely that the author of Acts fabricated these narratives merely to illustrate the principle Paul developed in the epistle. The agreement between the general description int he letter and the particular events in the history, without signs of contrivance, supports their mutual credibility.
26. Paul’s Long Stay in Ephesus
1 Corinthians 5:7-8 suggests that the epistle was composed around the feast of Passover: “Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” The epistle was clearly composed sometime prior to Pentecost (i.e., fifty days after Passover), since Paul indicates that “I will stay in Ephesus until Pentecost…” (1 Cor 16:8). Moreover, Paul indicates that he intends to spend the coming winter with the Corinthians (1 Cor 16:6). These scattered remarks indicate that the letter was written in the springtime, during Paul’s stay in Ephesus. Acts independently places Paul in Ephesus for an extended time (according to Acts 19:10, Paul remained there for “two years”) but does not make any reference to Passover, Pentecost, or Paul’s planning for the upcoming winter. This supports the historicity of Acts.
27. The Riot in Ephesus
We have already established that Paul composed 2 Corinthians from Macedonia, at a time corresponding to Acts 20:1-2. Thus, 2 Corinthians was written very shortly following the uproar in Ephesus that was instigated by Demetrius the silversmith along with other craftsmen, of which we read in Acts 19:23-41. The riot was instigated by Demetrius’ stated concern that Paul’s message was a threat to their trade in idols. In verses 23-34, we read,
28 When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” 29 So the city was filled with the confusion, and they rushed together into the theater, dragging with them Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians who were Paul’s companions in travel. 30 But when Paul wished to go in among the crowd, the disciples would not let him. 31 And even some of the Asiarchs, who were friends of his, sent to him and were urging him not to venture into the theater. 32 Now some cried out one thing, some another, for the assembly was in confusion, and most of them did not know why they had come together. 33 Some of the crowd prompted Alexander, whom the Jews had put forward. And Alexander, motioning with his hand, wanted to make a defense to the crowd. 34 But when they recognized that he was a Jew, for about two hours they all cried out with one voice, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”
It appears that the riot presented a credible threat to Paul’s life. The uproar was ultimately quieted by the town clerk (Acts 20:35-41). In Acts 20:1, we read, “After the uproar ceased, Paul sent for the disciples, and after encouraging them, he said farewell and departed for Macedonia.” It is at this point (as we have gleaned previously on entirely independent grounds) that Paul wrote his second epistle to the Corinthians. In 2 Corinthians 1:8-10, Paul writes,
8 For we do not want you to be unaware, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. 9 Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead. 10 He delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us. On him we have set our hope that he will deliver us again.
Paley remarks, “Nothing could be more expressive of the circumstances in which the history describes St. Paul to have been, at the time when the epistle purports to be written; or rather, nothing could be more expressive of the sensations arising from these circumstances, than this passage. It is the calm recollection of a mind emerged from the confusion of instant danger.” [15] Thus, once again, 2 Corinthians indirectly confirms the historicity of Acts. This undesigned coincidence is rendered all the more striking by the very strong evidence that Acts is not literarily dependent upon 2 Corinthians (nor vice versa).
28. Misunderstanding Paul’s Attitude Towards the Law
For reasons discussed previously, we can nail down the composition of Romans to the three-month period that Paul spent in Corinth in Acts 20:3. This is immediately prior to Paul’s visit to Jerusalem (Acts 21). In Acts 21:20-25, Paul is instructed by the leaders in Jerusalem,
“You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, 21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. 22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law. 25 But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.”
Given that Paul had just written the epistle to the Romans shortly before this episode, it is not difficult to see how various statements in the epistle may have led to this misunderstanding about Paul’s teaching. For instance, “we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law,” (Rom 3:28); “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace” (Rom 6:14); “But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive…” (Rom 7:6). On circumcision, Paul states that “circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter.” Moreover, his statement in Romans 4:9-12 that Abraham was justified by faith prior to circumcision could easily be heard as saying that circumcision is unnecessary, even for Jews. Given the various textual and thematic parallels between Romans and Galatians, I also deem it likely that the epistle to the Galatians was composed around the same time — a letter that contains many similar statements concerning Paul’s attitude towards the law and circumcision as those found in Romans. Paul’s teaching in those epistles also most likely reflects his preaching at the time.
29. Paul of the Tribe of Benjamin
A detail supplied only by Acts is that Paul was also known as Saul, which was his Hebrew name (e.g. Acts 9:4, 13:9). Paul’s letters inform us of a detail not mentioned by Acts — that Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin (Rom 11:1; Phil 3:5). This makes a lot of sense of why his Hebrew name is Saul — the first King of Israel, Saul, was the most famous Benjaminite (1 Samuel 9:1-2) and one whom one would expect someone of the tribe of Benjamin to be named after, particularly since naming children after notable tribal ancestors was common in Jewish culture.
30. Returned Again to Damascus
In Galatians 1:11-17, Paul writes,
11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
Take note of Paul’s words in verse 17 — “nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.” Paul does not take the time to explain to his readers why Damascus was the place to which he returned from Arabia. It is taken for granted that they already know the connection to Damascus — this is where he went immediately upon his conversion (Acts 9:8). William Paley remarks [16],
In this quotation from the epistle, I desire it to be remarked how incidentally it appears, that the affair passed at Damascus. In what may be called the direct part of the account, no mention is made of the place of his conversion at all: a casual expression at the end, and an expression brought in for a different purpose, alone fixes it to have been at Damascus; “I returned again to Damascus.” Nothing can be more like simplicity and undesignedness than this is.
This casual connection between Galatians and Acts is all the more striking when we consider that these two sources appear to be independent of one another — that is, the author of Acts did not use Galatians as a source, nor vice versa. I refer readers to the earlier discussion for the argument for this conclusion. The internal evidence of independence between Acts and Galatians, together with the convergence of details relating to Paul’s conversion (particularly the reference to returning to Damascus) suggest that the accounts in Acts concerning Paul’s conversion are in alignment with Paul’s own testimony.
31. Paul’s Brief Visit to Jerusalem
It is also of note that, in Galatians 1:18-19, Paul indicates that his visit to Jerusalem was quite brief. One wonders why Paul’s visit to Jerusalem was cut short such that he only remained there fifteen days and reportedly saw none of the other apostles besides Cephas (Simon Peter) and James the Lord’s brother. Acts 9:29 indicates that there was an assassination plot against Paul by the Hellenists such that he needed to leave Jerusalem in haste. This explains the account in Galatians in an undesigned way, such that it serves to corroborate the historicity of both accounts. This further supports that the testimony in Acts concerning Paul’s conversion and the events shortly thereafter reflect Paul’s own testimony. We also read in Acts 22:17 Paul’s statement that “When I had returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance and saw him saying to me, ‘Make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about me.’” Paley remarks, “Here we have the general terms of one text so explained by a distant text in the same book, as to bring an indeterminate expression into a close conformity with a specification delivered in another book: a species of consistency not, I think, usually found in fabulous relations.” [17]
32. “I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.”
A further point, relating to our text in Galatians 1:18-19, is that Paul some verses later indicates that “afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,” (Gal 1:21). The account in Acts 9 indicates that, when the brothers learned of the plot against Paul’s life, “they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus,” (v. 30). Paley observes that, “if he took his journey by land, it would carry him through Syria into Cilicia; and he would come, after his visit at Jerusalem, ‘into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,’ in the very order in which he mentions them in the epistle.” [18] Caesarea, of course, was a major port city, and so it is plausible that he made at least part of the journey by sea, before perhaps continuing on land. It is also of note that Paul indicates immediately following this statement in Galatians that “I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only were hearing it said, ‘He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy,” (Galatians 1:22-23). Paley observes, “Upon which passage I observe, first, that what is here said of the churches of Judea, is spoken in connection with his journey into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Secondly, that the passage itself has little significancy, and that the connection is inexplicable, unless St. Paul went through Judea (though probably by a hasty journey) at the time that he came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Suppose him to have passed by land from Cæsarea to Tarsus, all this, as hath been observed, would be precisely true.” [19]
33. Paul’s Escape from Damascus
Paul’s own account of the plot against his life in Damascus, in 2 Corinthians 11:32-33, dovetails with the account in Acts 9:23-25. Paul writes, “At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas was guarding the city of Damascus in order to seize me, but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped his hands.” Compare this with the account in Acts 9:23-25: “When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.” Notice that the account in Acts emphasizes the involvement of the Jews, whereas Paul, in 2 Corinthians, emphasizes the involvement of Aretas IV, the king of the Nabateans (who reigned from 9 B.C. to 40 C.E.). These are not mutually exclusive (presumably, there was a conspiracy involving both parties). Nonetheless, the discrepancy between Acts and 2 Corinthians points to independence, which renders the points of convergence of significant evidential value. Why might Aretas IV be involved in the conspiracy against Paul in Damascus? Aretas IV had significant political influence and authority in the region. Around the time of Paul’s conversion, Aretas IV was ruling Damascus, likely through a governor or ethnarch who was in charge of the Jewish community there. This authority over Damascus was granted to Aretas by the emperor Gaius Caligula. The event in Acts probably occurred around 37 C.E., based on evidence of Nabatean rule in Damascus commencing that year.
34. Visiting Troas
In 2 Corinthians 2:12-13, Paul writes, “When I came to Troas to preach the gospel of Christ, even though a door was opened for me in the Lord, my spirit was not at rest because I did not find my brother Titus there. So I took leave of them and went on to Macedonia.” This stop at Troas on the outward journey from Ephesus to Macedonia is not mentioned by Acts. However, Acts does record a later return journey where Paul did pass through Troas, found disciples there with whom he gathered to break bread, and preached at length (Acts 20:5-7). The epistle thus indicates that Paul had an “open door” for ministry previously in Troas, even though this visit was cut short due to his not finding Titus there. On the other hand, in the narrative in Acts concerning the return journey, it is revealed that there was in fact a functioning body of disciples in Troas on the later journey, which is consistent with Paul’s statement in his letter concerning his earlier opportunity for ministry there. But if the author of Acts were using 2 Corinthians as a source, he would be more likely to mention the visit to Troas, and the presence of Paul’s contacts there, during the outward trip, rather than on the return trip.
35. “Once I was Stoned”
As discussed earlier in this article, there is ample reason to think that Acts and 2 Corinthians are independent of one another. Among those lines of evidence is the fact that Paul’s laundry list of sufferings in 2 Corinthians 11 (all of which must have happened to him prior to Acts 20:1-2 when he wrote this epistle) cannot be readily correlated with Acts.
This presents no problem for Acts, for reasons given previously. Yet, strikingly, this account of the persecutions endured by Paul does not contradict Acts at any point, though it very well could have done so. For example, when Paul indicates that he was beaten with rods three times, Acts only reports one beating with rods (which happened in Philippi — Acts 16:22-23). This is consistent with the account in 2 Corinthians. But if Acts had mentioned four beatings with rods, we would have a very real contradiction between Acts and 2 Corinthians. More striking is Paul’s statement that “once I was stoned.” Acts also mentions exactly one time that Paul was stoned (which happened in Lystra in Lycaonia) (Acts 14:19-23). If, however, Acts had mentioned even one further instance of Paul being stoned, there would be an actual contradiction between Acts and the epistle. Consider too that there had been previously an intent to stone Paul in Iconium, though this plot failed: “But the people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews and some with the apostles. When an attempt was made by both Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, to mistreat them and to stone them, they learned of it and fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and to the surrounding country, and there they continued to preach the gospel,” (Acts 14:4-7). Had Luke reported that this plot was successful, he would have contradicted 2 Corinthians. Paley remarks, “Truth is necessarily consistent: but it is scarcely possible that independent accounts, not having truth to guide them, should thus advance to the very brink of contradiction without falling into it.” [20]
36. The Church in Jerusalem
As we have previously discussed, there are strong reasons to think that Acts and Galatians are independent of one another. I shall not repeat those arguments here. In view of this independence, the points of convergence between Acts and Galatians are quite striking. Among those is the fact that both Acts and Galatians indicate a prominent role of James the brother of Jesus, together with Simon Peter and John the son of Zebedee, in the Jerusalem church. Paul mentions that “after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas [i.e., Simon Peter] and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother,” (Gal 1:18-19). Moreover, Paul discusses his visit to Jerusalem after fourteen years where he presented the gospel that he had been proclaiming to the gentiles to the leaders in the Jerusalem church, to ensure the gospel he had been preaching was in alignment with theirs. Paul indicates that “when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.” Consistent with this, Acts 15:7,13 indicates the leadership role of Peter and James at the Jerusalem council. In Acts 21:17-18, we read, “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.” This again indicates James’ leadership role in Jerusalem. The leadership role of John is also implied elsewhere. In Acts 3:1-11 and 4:13-22, John appears alongside Peter as one of the main leaders, healing the lame man at the temple and subsequently being arrested and examined by the Sanhedrin.
37. Barnabas with Paul at Antioch
In Galatians 1:11-13, we read, “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.” Thus, Paul incidentally refers to Barnabas’ presence during his time in Antioch. Barnabas’ involvement in Antioch is mentioned very casually, in the context of his being led astray by the behavior of others. Acts indicates that Barnabas was present with Paul in Antioch on two occasions. In Acts 11:22-26, Barnabas is sent by the Jerusalem church to Antioch, where he then seeks out Paul in Tarsus and brings him back to Antioch. In Acts 15:35, Luke says that “Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.” Which of these one identifies as the most likely occasion of the confrontation of Peter will depend largely on whether one subscribes to an early or late Galatian theory (I am personally inclined to think that Galatians was written after, rather than before, the Jerusalem council). Either way, the history thus places Barnabas in Antioch in an uncontrived way, which supports the credibility of the account in Acts.
38. Building Teaching on Authority vs. Argument
The epistle to the Galatians and to the Romans both address the same issue of justification, but Paul’s approach differs depending upon his relationship to the recipients of his letter. He had founded the church in Galatia, and thus appeals to his personal authority. For example, in Galatians 1:6-8, Paul writes, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” Moreover, “I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ,” (Gal 1:11-12). Paul further writes in Galatians 4:11-12,19-20 “I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain. Brothers, I entreat you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are…my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you! I wish I could be present with you now and change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.” In Galatians 5:2-3, Paul declares, “Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.” Contrast this with Paul’s approach in his letter to the Romans, a church that Paul had never visited and had no established authority. In this epistle, Paul relies instead on reasoned argument. This contrast fits the historical situation.
39. Jewish-Instigated Persecution
In multiple texts in his epistle to the Galatians, Paul indicates that the chief persecution against him came at the hands of the Jews. This is implied by the following statements:
- Galatians 4:29: But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.
- Galatians 5:11: But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed.
- Galatians 6:17: From now on let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.
Compare these statements to the following episodes recounted in Acts:
- Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:50): Jews stir up leading citizens against Paul and Barnabas.
- Iconium (Acts 14:1–2): Unbelieving Jews incite Gentiles against them.
- Lystra (Acts 14:19): Jews from Antioch and Iconium persuade the crowd to stone Paul.
- Thessalonica (Acts 17:4–5): Jews incite a mob and attack Jason’s house.
- Berea (Acts 17:13): Jews from Thessalonica follow Paul and stir up more trouble.
- Corinth (Acts 18:12): Jews bring Paul before Gallio’s tribunal.
By contrast, persecution that was purely instigated by gentiles occurred on only two occasions, and in both instances this was prompted by economic interests — in particular, the masters of the slave girl in Philippi who had lost profit as a result of Paul’s exorcism (Acts 16:19) and Demetrius and the silversmiths in Ephesus since Paul’s preaching was a threat to their trade in idols.
40. Addressing the Ephesian Elders
In Acts 20:18-35, Paul delivers his farewell speech to the Ephesian elders:
You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, 19 serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews; 20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, 21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. 22 And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me. 24 But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. 25 And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, 27 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. 29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. 32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. 33 I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. 34 You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. 35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’
There are multiple features of this speech that resemble subtle aspects of Paul’s personality and emphases as represented by his letters. This indicates that the same Paul lies behind this speech (as reported by Luke) and the epistles. Lydia McGrew explains [21],
The speech breathes the personality of the author of the epistles, including both his genuine love and warm-heartedness and what one might less charitably be inclined to call his emotional manipulativeness and self-dramatization. The same Paul who brings the elders of Miletus to tears with his references to his own trials and tears (Acts 20.19) and his prediction of never seeing them again (Acts 20.25, 36–38) is the Paul who attempts, probably successfully, to induce Philemon to free the slave Onesimus by telling him that he “owes him his own life” (Philem vv 17–19). He is the same Paul who says so much about his own trials and distresses in I Corinthians and reminds his readers that he is their spiritual father (I Cor 4.8–14). The same Paul who launches, at this intimate moment of farewell to his dear friends, into a spirited defense of his own blamelessness in financial matters (Acts 20.33–35) is the Paul who harps on this theme repeatedly in the epistles…and who is almost painfully defensive about his apostleship in II Corinthians 11–12. The same Paul who urges the Corinthians to be imitators of himself (I Cor 4.16), who says that the “care of all the churches” comes upon him daily (II Cor 11.28), and who earnestly uses his apostolic authority, his love, and the sheer force of his personality to dissuade the Galatians from yielding to the demand of circumcision (Gal 4.16–20) is the Apostle Paul who tells the elders in Acts 20.29–32 that after his departure they will be assailed by false teachers and should resist, remembering how he himself “admonished them with tears” during his ministry.
The artless similarity of this speech delivered by Paul, recounted in Acts, and Paul’s letters is indicative of the historical credibility of Acts’ recounting of Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders. These parallels are even more striking given the independence of Acts from the epistles (the case for which has been laid out previously).
The Book of Acts as High-Resolution Reportage
In sum, the cumulative force of the incidental agreements between Acts and these four epistles (particularly when one factors in the case for Acts being independent of the letters) strongly supports the conclusion that Acts is high-resolution historical reportage. Taken cumulatively, the undesigned coincidences surveyed provide powerful evidence for the reliability of Acts as an historical account and confirm that its author, Luke, was well informed, close up to the facts, and habitually scrupulous. This profile comports well with Luke’s own claim to have been Paul’s travelling companion for much of his journeys. This, in turn, carries implications for the credibility of Christianity. If Acts can be trusted as an account composed by someone in proximity to Paul, and someone who is habitually scrupulous, then Luke’s testimony concerning Paul’s conversion and miracles most likely represents the testimony of Paul himself. Luke also attests to Paul’s unwavering willingness to suffer toil and hardship, even imprisonment and death, for the sake of the gospel. Moreover, Luke’s proximity to the Jerusalem apostles gives us reason to think that he accurately represents the testimony of the apostles concerning the phenomenology of the appearances of Jesus to the disciples after his death, as well as the adverse circumstances of their public ministry. Thus, our case for the historical credibility of Acts bears in no small measure on the broader case for the truth of the gospel.
Notes
1. William Paley, Horae Paulinae, or the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced (London: R. Faulder, 1791).
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Lydia McGrew, Hidden In Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (DeWard Publishing Company, Ltd), 140.
12. Ibid., 152-153.
13. William Paley, Horae Paulinae, or the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced (London: R. Faulder, 1791).
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. Lydia McGrew, Hidden In Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (DeWard Publishing Company, Ltd), 157.