Last year, I published a lengthy essay titled “The Book of Acts is High-Resolution Reportage,” in which I documented and discussed no less than forty undesigned coincidencesa between Acts and the first four epistles found in our New Testament – i.e., Romans, the Corinthian letters, and Galatians. Cumulatively, this class of evidence supports the historicity of Acts down to the granular detail. In this article, I will strengthen this case still further by adducing an additional set of undesigned coincidences drawn between Acts and the remaining Pauline epistles.
Here, I lay out a total of twenty-two examples of interlocking correspondences between Acts and Paul’s epistles. There is one overlap (#9 below) with those covered in my earlier article, since the epistle to the Philippians was of relevance to a coincidence described in my earlier essay. Moreover, #8 and #12 are not independent of one another. Thus, the total number of examples adduced in this article that are both unique and independent is twenty. This brings the total number of undesigned coincidences between Acts and the Pauline corpus to approximately sixty. I am indebted to William Paley for all of the examples adduced in this article. [1]
Independence of Acts and the Epistles
As in my previous article, I will begin by arguing that the author of Acts and the epistles of Paul are independent of one another – that is to say, the author of Acts was not using Paul’s letters as a source, nor vice versa. Since 2 Thessalonians, Philemon and Titus are the only Pauline epistles that do not contain any undesigned coincidences with Acts, I will not include either of those letters in this discussion.
Ephesians & Colossians
A strong case can be marshalled that the book of Acts is not dependent on the epistles of Ephesians and Colossians, nor vice versa. First, both epistles present Paul as an established prisoner (Eph 3:1; 4:1; 6:20; Col 4:3,10,18). The account in Acts concludes with Paul being placed under house arrest (Acts 28). The perspective from inside that imprisonment is never developed in Acts, though it is an emphasis in these epistles. Moreover, the letter to the Colossians mentions Tychicus (Col. 4:7–8), Onesimus (Col. 4:9), Aristarchus (Col. 4:10), Mark (Col. 4:10), Jesus called Justus (Col. 4:11), Epaphras (Col. 4:12–13), Luke (Col. 4:14), and Demas (Col. 4:14). Acts references several of these individuals but never names Onesimus, despite his significance in the letters to the Colossians and Philemon. If Acts were factually dependent on these epistles, the omission of the story around Onesimus is surprising. Furthermore, though Acts references Aristarchus as one of those who travelled with him to Rome (Acts 27:2), the other five companions mentioned in Colossians (besides Luke, included by the “we” pronouns) are not stated by Acts to have been present with Paul in Rome.
A central figure in the epistle to the Colossians is Epaphras, to whom Paul attributes the founding and discipling of the Colossian church (Col 1:7: 4:12). This individual is never mentioned in Acts, even though Acts spends significant time on Paul’s two-year ministry in Ephesus, during which the city of Colossae was probably evangelized, since Luke stresses that “all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 19:10). Various indicators throughout the Colossian epistle suggest that Paul had not visited Colossae (Col 1:4,7-8; 2:1), which makes the evangelism of the Colossians during Paul’s ministry in Ephesus likely. Epaphras himself was most likely converted during this time. He is identified as “one of you” (Col 4:12), indicating that he was from Colossae. Moreover, he is said to have “worked hard for you and for those in Laodicea and in Hierapolis,” (Col 4:13), a reference to the three neighboring cities of the Lycus Valley. If Luke had the epistle before him, Paul’s ministry in Ephesus is a very natural place to incorporate Epaphras, but Luke does not mention his name at all.
It may also be observed that the book of Acts never even mentions the Colossian church, but rather focuses on Ephesus as the strategic center from which the gospel spread across Asia Minor – a subject to which Luke devotes three chapters (Acts 18-20). Colossians is one particular instance of a city in Asia Minor that was reached with the gospel during this time, apparently by Epaphras. The two accounts fit together, therefore, quite naturally. In addition to Colossae, moreover, the epistle assumes an established network of believers across the cities of Hierapolis and Laodicea (Col 2:1; 4-13-16). Yet, neither of those two additional cities are mentioned either.
The epistle to the Colossians, moreover, suggests that John Mark has been fully reconciled with Paul (Col 4:10). Acts reports the earlier falling out between Paul and Barnabas over John Mark’s withdrawal from them in Pamphylia (Acts 15:37-41; cf. Acts 13:13) but does not mention a later reconciliation. Luke also does not report John Mark’s familial relationship with Barnabas (Col 4:10), which illuminates Barnabas’ desire for John Mark to accompany him and Paul on their second missionary journey, despite his earlier defection.
There is also a strong case for independence between Acts and Ephesians. For one thing, Acts 20 reports Paul’s farewell speech to the elders of Ephesus. If Luke had the epistle to the Ephesians before him, one might expect to see literary dependence. However, the epistle and the report of the speech in Acts 20 scarcely overlap. In his farewell address to the Ephesian elders, Paul warns that fierce wolves will enter the flock after his departure (Acts 20:29–30), recalls serving the Lord with many tears (Acts 20:19, 31), reminds them of his manual labor to support himself and his companions while in Ephesus (Acts 20:34–35; cf. Acts 18:3), and concludes by quoting Jesus’ saying, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35), a saying not preserved in any of the four canonical Gospels. Conversely, the themes emphasized in Ephesians include cosmic reconciliation (Eph. 1:9–10; 2:11–22), union with Christ (Eph. 1:3–14; 2:4–10), unity between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:11–22; 3:6), and spiritual warfare (Eph. 6:10–18).
Tychicus is mentioned in both Ephesians and Colossians and stated to be the carrier of both of these letters (Eph 6:21; Col 4:7). He is referred to only once in Acts (20:4), and very briefly as one of those who accompanied Paul when he left Corinth. Neither Acts nor the epistles give us any further information about who he is. The fact that Tychicus is with Paul during his journey from Corinth to Jerusalem also fits with the indication in Ephesians and Colossians that Tychicus was present with Paul during his imprisonment in Rome.
Philippians
There are also multiple arguments confirming the independence of Acts and Philippians. Luke’s account concludes with Paul’s two-year house arrest in Rome (Acts 28:30-31). The epistle also presupposes that Paul is a prisoner (Phil 1:7,13-17), but highlights entirely different features that are not emphasized at all in Acts, including that “it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ” (Phil 1:13), that “most of the brothers, having become confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, are much more bold to speak the word without fear,” (Phil 1:14), that rivals were taking advantage of his imprisonment for their own gain (Phil 1:15-18), and that the community of the believers from whom he sends greetings includes “those of Caesar’s household,” (Phil 4:22). On the other hand, Acts emphasizes certain details that are not mentioned at all by the epistle, including Paul’s appeal to Caesar (Acts 25:11) and his shipwreck while a prisoner bound for Rome (Acts 27).
The epistle expresses Paul’s gratitude to the Philippians for their financial support of his ministry – “Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again.” (Phil 1:16). Yet, Acts does not mention the Philippians supplying financial aid.
Philippians 2:22 also indicates that Timothy is someone known intimately by the Philippian Christians (“you know Timothy’s proven worth…”), whereas Acts does not mention Timothy in the context of Paul’s ministry in Philippi at all.
Epaphroditus is mentioned as being a significant individual in the epistle (Phil 2:25-30; 4:18). However, he is never mentioned throughout Acts.
Philippians also alludes to Euodia and Syntyche, and Clement (Phil 4:2-3), none of whom are mentioned in Acts. Instead, Acts 16:14-15 spotlights Lydia of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who is never mentioned in the epistle.
1 Thessalonians
Multiple lines of evidence support the independence of Acts and 1 Thessalonians. For example, it may be observed that 1 Thessalonians 1:9 emphasizes the conversion of pagans in Thessalonica: “…you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God…” The book of Acts, on the other hand, emphasizes the conversion of Jews and god-fearing gentiles (Acts 17:4). These are, of course, not mutually exclusive. There are even indications that this letter is addressed to a mixed audience. Indeed, the epistle contains allusions to ideas that make little sense to gentiles lacking familiarity with Jewish eschatological thought (1 Thess 4:14-17). Paul also distinguishes believers from gentiles, whose ways they should not copy (1 Thess 4:4-5). Nonetheless, if the author of Acts were using 1 Thessalonians as a source, one would expect him to lay more emphasis on the conversion of pagans.
Furthermore, 1 Thessalonians 3:1-2 states,
Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone, 2 and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s coworker in the gospel of Christ, to establish and exhort you in your faith, 3 that no one be moved by these afflictions. For you yourselves know that we are destined for this. 4 For when we were with you, we kept telling you beforehand that we were to suffer affliction, just as it has come to pass, and just as you know. 5 For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent to learn about your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and our labor would be in vain.
Luke never explicitly mentions Timothy being sent from Athens back to Thessalonica, which creates a narrative gap in the account, particularly since Paul, upon having to leave Berea, had given instructions to Silas and Timothy to rejoin him as soon as possible (Acts 17:15), and indeed verse 16 indicates that Paul was waiting for them in Athens. But the next we read of Silas and Timothy is when they catch up with Paul in Corinth in Acts 18, and their arrival is from Macedonia. If Luke were using 1 Thessalonians as a source, one would expect him to mention Timothy having been sent back from Athens to Macedonia. His failure to do so introduces unnecessary confusion. 1 Thessalonians also stresses that Paul was relieved when Timothy brought an encouraging report back from Thessalonica (3:6-13), but neither Paul’s concern for the Thessalonians’ wellbeing, nor Timothy’s encouraging report, is mentioned by Acts.
Silas and Timothy are mentioned in the greeting of the letter (1 Thess 1:1), indicating their presence in Corinth with Paul at the time of his writing the letter. This implies that the church in Thessalonica were familiar with Silas and Timothy, and we might infer Timothy’s presence alongside Paul when Paul visited this city. However, Acts does not explicitly mention their presence during Paul’s time in Thessalonica. They are only mentioned off-handedly in Acts 17:14-15 when Paul leaves them in Berea, instructing them to catch up with him as soon as possible. This implies that they were in fact present with Paul in Thessalonica as well. Nonetheless, if Luke had the epistle before him, he might be expected to mention Silas and Timothy in relation to Paul’s time in Thessalonica. Silas’ name is also given Σιλουανὸς in the letter’s introduction, as it is throughout Paul’s letters. If the author of Acts was dependent on the epistles, it is surprising he uses a different form of the name, calling him instead Σιλᾶς.
There are also indications in the letter that suggest that Paul had a more extended ministry in Thessalonica than is suggested by a face-value reading of Acts (which says he ministered in the synagogues on three Sabbath days). Paul states that he and his associates “worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God.” He also suggests that he developed close pastoral relationships: “For you know how, like a father with his children, we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory,” (1 Thess 2:11-12). Paul also implies that the Thessalonians became imitators of other churches (1 Thess 2:14) and had become well known throughout Macedonia and Achaia (1 Thess 1:8). An impression is created by these references that Paul’s relationship with the church in Thessalonica was significantly deeper than what we might expect from a cursory reading of Acts 17.
While Luke says that Paul reasoned in the synagogue for three Sabbaths (Acts 17:2), he does not explicitly say that Paul left following three weeks. These three Sabbath appearances in the synagogue are simply recorded, and then Luke moves on to the riot narrative. Nonetheless, if Luke had the epistle before him, it is surprising that he gives the first impression of a short period of time in Thessalonica, when the contrary is suggested by the letter.
The Pastoral Epistles
The difficulty of integrating the pastoral epistles into the chronology given in Acts is well known. Nonetheless, even though we cannot construct a journey precisely, we can produce a consistent picture. Paul went back from Rome after his first imprisonment to Greece and Asia Minor. He was then re-arrested, and 2 Timothy was written from this second imprisonment. It should be noted that this contrasts starkly with his stated intention, according to Romans, to visit Spain after having been in Rome (Rom 15:24,28). At that time, he was hoping to come to Rome as a free man and continue his missionary journeys westward from Rome. The prison epistles themselves reveal that he changed this plan and travelled east rather than west following his first imprisonment to visit the churches there and strengthen them. We can infer from 2 Timothy that he was re-arrested in the course of those travels.
If the Pastoral epistles were forgeries, the impersonator would be far more likely either to make Paul write from Spain (if he were going to set epistles after Paul’s first imprisonment) or, far more likely in my judgment, to set a forged epistle at some recognizable point within the travels in Acts. The fact that the pastoral epistles fit nowhere in Acts has often been used to argue against their authenticity. However, it is an argument in precisely the opposite direction. In real life, people change their plans, and we can reconstruct from the prison epistles and pastorals how Paul revised his plans and carried them out between the two imprisonments. Thus, rather than being an argument against the authenticity of the Pastoral epistles, I would lay it out as evidence confirming their Pauline authorship.
If, on the other hand, the author of Acts had the Pastoral epistles before him, it is surprising that he does not fill out some of the details we may derive from those letters concerning what happened to Paul after his imprisonment in Rome. Acts shows no knowledge whatsoever of the post-imprisonment travels and situations described in the Pastorals, such as Paul’s leaving Titus in Crete (Titus 1:5), Timothy in Ephesus while heading to Macedonia (1 Tim 1:3), or the personal details in 2 Timothy concerning Paul’s final circumstances, associates, cloak, books, and parchments.
Though there are no undesigned coincidences connecting Acts to the letter to Titus, it may nonetheless be observed that, Titus is never alluded to in Acts. There are also various other individuals mentioned in the Pastorals but never in Acts, including Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim 1:20), Phygelus (2 Tim 1:15); Hermogenes (2 Tim 1:15), Onesiphorus (2 Tim 1:16-18; 4:19); Philetus (2 Tim 2:17); and Demas (2 Tim 4:10). Acts also does not name the mother and grandmother of Timothy, which is given in Acts as Eunice and Lois respectively (2 Tim 1:5).
Taken together, these points suggest that Acts is not dependent on the Pastorals, nor vice versa. For a more thorough treatment of the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral epistles, I refer readers to my essay on this subject.
The Undesigned Coincidences
Ephesians & Colossians
1. An Ambassador in a Chain
In Ephesians 6:18-20, Paul requests that the Ephesians make prayerful intercession on his behalf: “To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.” Though the ESV translation uses the phrase “an ambassador in chains,” the Greek term is in fact ἁλύσει (the dative case of ἅλυσις). Note that this word, in the original Greek, is in the singular form. Acts 28:16-20 describes Paul’s imprisonment as follows:
16 And when we came into Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier who guarded him. 17 After three days he called together the local leaders of the Jews, and when they had gathered, he said to them, “Brothers, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. 18 When they had examined me, they wished to set me at liberty, because there was no reason for the death penalty in my case. 19 But because the Jews objected, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar—though I had no charge to bring against my nation. 20 For this reason, therefore, I have asked to see you and speak with you, since it is because of the hope of Israel that I am wearing this chain.”
This text uses the same word for chain found in Ephesians — i.e., ἅλυσιν (the accusative form of ἅλυσις), again in the singular form. Thus, Paul describes his imprisonment in a manner that is similar to how it is described by Ephesians. There is, in fact, more than one way of referring to being a prisoner, some of which are used elsewhere in the epistles and also elsewhere in Acts. This particular word for “chain” is employed only twice in the Pauline epistles. In Acts 26:28-29, the following dialogue takes place between Paul and Agrippa:
28 And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” 29 And Paul said, “Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains.”
Here, Paul uses a plural word to refer to his chains (i.e., δεσμῶν). If Luke were fictitiously creating the speech by Paul in Acts 28 on the basis of Ephesians, it is surprising that he chose to use a different word in this other speech. Moreover, as discussed further below, there are other words, besides this, used for Paul’s bond in his epistles, and those do not necessitate the singular usage. It is an undesigned coincidence that, though Paul uses the singular word ἅλυσις only twice in his epistles, this very same word is used in Acts 28:20. Moreover, though the plural use of the term could refer to singular as well as multiple chains (see, for instance, Col 4:18, Phil 1:7, 1:13-16; and Philem 10 for examples of the plural usage to describe Paul’s bondage in Rome; Paul also uses a generic term, δέδεμαι, “have been bound” in Col 4:3). However, the reverse is not true — the singular form could not be used to describe plural chains. As Paley explains, “Δεσμος the noun, and δεσμαι the verb, being general terms, were applicable to this in common with any other species of personal coercion; but ἁλυσις, in the singular number, to none but this.” [2]
As it turns out, according to Roman practice, this method involved being bound by a single chain to a soldier. For example, in Acts 12:6-7, Peter is bound to two soldiers by two chains. Moreover, Josephus writes of the imprisonment of Herod Agrippa by Tiberius. When a man observed Agrippa bound and wanted to talk with him, “he asked leave of the soldier to whom he was bound, to let him come near to him, to speak with him,” (Antiquities 18.6.7). Upon his release by Caius Caesar Agrippa, he was given a gold chain, which was equivalent in weight to the iron chain by which his hands had been bound (Antiquities 19.6.1). The word in the Greek is again the singular form, ἅλυσιν.
Acts 28:16 indicates that “Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier who guarded him.” Taken together with Paul’s allusion to “this chain” when addressing the Jewish leaders in verse 20, in addition to the historical background, Luke implies that Paul was bound by a chain to a soldier. This dovetails with Paul’s passing reference in Ephesians 6:20 to himself as “an ambassador in a chain.” Lydia McGrew notes that “There is no reason why a fictionalizing, later author of Acts should pick up on the isolated reference to ‘an ambassador in a chain’ and invent both a soldier who kept Paul and Paul’s somewhat dramatic reference to ‘this chain’ in talking with the Jewish leaders in Acts 28.” [3]
2. Mark’s Relationship with Barnabas
In Acts 15:37-40, Paul and Barnabas have a sharp falling out over John Mark, who has previously withdrawn from them in Pamphylia (cf. Acts 13:13). Paul does not want John Mark to join them for the second missionary journey. Barnabas, however, appears adamant that Mark should join. So strong is the disagreement that arises between Paul and Barnabas that they split company, going their own separate ways. The account in Acts is highly suggestive that there is some kind of prior relationship or connection between Barnabas and John Mark, of which the book of Acts does not take notice. However, when we turn to Colossians 4:10, we read, “Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin (ὁ ἀνεψιὸς) of Barnabas…” Thus, we learn that Barnabas and John Mark had a familial relationship. This dovetails with the account in Acts in an incidental and casual way – that is, in a manner that is best explained on the historicity of the account in Acts (and the Pauline authorship of Colossians). It looks like by the time Paul wrote Colossians, during his first Roman imprisonment (60-62 C.E.), the rift that existed between Paul and Barnabas over Mark had been resolved (indeed, it looks like by this time they were on good terms again). But the author of Acts does not appear to be inventing the narrative in Acts 15:37-40 to dovetail with Colossians, since Acts makes no mention of the familial relationship between Mark and Barnabas. Moreover, persons mentioned in Colossians such as Epaphras (Col 1:7; 4:12), Onesimus (Col 4:9), Nympha (Col 4:15), Jesus called Justus (Col 4:11), Archippus (Col 4:17), and Demas (Col 4:14), none of whom are mentioned at all in Acts, suggests that Acts and Colossians are textually independent of one another.
3. Mark’s mother in Acts
Mark’s family background also fits naturally with another detail in Acts. One might expect Mark’s mother, as Barnabas’ sister (or at minimum a close relative), to fulfil a prominent role in the Jerusalem church. That this was the case is confirmed incidentally by Acts. In Acts 12:12, we read that, following Peter’s release from prison, “he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying.” Acts omits mention of Mary’s relationship to Barnabas, and Colossians does not refer to her house or her involvement in the Jerusalem church. The two sources dovetail again in a manner that supports the genuineness of Paul’s epistle as well as the historicity of the account in Acts.
4. Aristarchus in Rome
In Colossians 4:10-14, Paul writes,
10 Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions—if he comes to you, welcome him), 11 and Jesus who is called Justus. These are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me. 12 Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ Jesus, greets you, always struggling on your behalf in his prayers, that you may stand mature and fully assured in all the will of God. 13 For I bear him witness that he has worked hard for you and for those in Laodicea and in Hierapolis. 14 Luke the beloved physician greets you, as does Demas.
Paul therefore lists a total of eight individuals who are present with him during his imprisonment in Rome. Though Acts references Aristarchus as one of those who travelled with him to Rome (Acts 27:2), the other six companions mentioned in Colossians are not stated by Acts to have been present with Paul in Rome. At the very least, if Acts were dependent on Colossians, one might have expected Mark and Jesus called Justus to have been listed alongside Aristarchus, since these men are mentioned alongside Aristarchus in Colossians 4:10-11. Mark, moreover, is a character already introduced by Acts (12:25, 13:13; 15:37-39) and therefore known to the readers.
Paley summarizes [4],
The observation that strikes me in reading the passage is, that together with Aristarchus, whose journey to Rome we trace in the history, are joined Marcus and Justus, of whose coming to Rome the history says nothing. Aristarchus alone appears in the history, and Aristarchus alone would have appeared in the epistle, if the author had regulated himself by that conformity. Or if you take it the other way; if you suppose the history to have been made out of the epistle, why the journey of Aristarchus to Rome should be recorded, and not that of Marcus and Justus, if the groundwork of the narrative was the appearance of Aristarchus’s name in the epistle, seems to be unaccountable.
5. Persecuted for the Sake of the Gentiles
A point stressed by both Ephesians and Colossians is that Paul’s imprisonment is a result of his ministry to the gentiles. He writes, “For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you gentiles,” (Eph 3:1) and urgers prayer “to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison,” (Col 4:3). The mystery of Christ is defined in Ephesians 3:6: “This mystery is that the gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” The background to these notes is not filled out by the epistles. However, when we turn to Acts, we find that Paul’s evangelism to the gentiles is precisely what provoked the opposition of the Jews – from the turn to the gentiles in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:46-50) through the Jewish mob who stirred up the crowds against Paul and Silas in Thessalonica and Berea (Acts 17:1-15), to the rumors among those in Jerusalem who were zealous for the law concerning Paul’s alleged teaching that the Jews are to abandon the law of Moses and his supposedly bringing gentiles into the temple, ultimately leading to a riot (Acts 21:18-36). When Paul attempts to address the crowd, they listen for some time until he declares that Jesus sent him to the gentiles, after which they break out in an uproar, crying for his blood (Acts 22:21-22). Paul later advises King Agrippa that the Jews seized and attempted to kill him “for this reason” – i.e., his obedience to the heavenly vision sending him to the gentiles (Acts 26:15-23).
Lydia McGrew remarks [5],
The narrative throughout Acts shows that Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles was a continual cause of conflict with his fellow Jews. His faithfulness to this ministry resulted in his being nearly beaten to death by a mob in the Temple, a fate from which the Roman soldiers rescued him. Protective custody quickly turned into outright imprisonment by the Romans. The remainder of Acts tells of his being tried by the Roman authorities and kept in prison by them partly to please his Jewish opponents, his appeal to Caesar, and his journey to Rome after that appeal.
This complex situation, described in Acts, fits remarkably well with the statements in Ephesians and Colossians about his imprisonment being in consequence of his ministry to the gentiles and proclamation of “the mystery of Christ.”
6. Luke as a Gentile
In Colossians 4:7-17, Paul lists various individuals who are present with him in Rome, at the time of his writing. These include Onesimus, who is said to be “one of you” (i.e., a Colossian), Aristarchus, Mark, Jesus who is called Justus, Epaphras (also said to be a Colossian), Luke the physician, and Demas. Of those seven individuals, three (Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus called Justus) are said to be “men of the circumcision,” indicating that they were Jews. The implication is that the others were gentiles, which is further supported by the reference to Onesimus and Epaphras both being “one of you” (i.e., from Colossae, implying that they are gentiles). The implication is that Luke is a gentile. This aligns with the clues in Luke-Acts that the author is a gentile. In particular, Luke lays great stress on the extension of salvation to the gentiles. Moreover, when quoting the Old Testament, Luke consistently follows the Septuagint translation. Luke’s style also reflects literary Greek rather than Semitic Greek (e.g. the prologue in Luke 1:1-4) reads like the preface to a Greek historical work (cf. Thucydides, Hist. 1.21). This supports him being either a highly educated Diaspora Jew, or else a gentile God-fearer. It is unlikely that a Palestinian Jew would write this way.
Philippians
7. The Same Conflict That You Saw I Had
In Philippians 1:29-2:2, Paul writes,
29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, 30 engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have. 1 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, 2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.
We may compare these remarks with the account in Acts 16:22-24:
22 The crowd joined in attacking them, and the magistrates tore the garments off them and gave orders to beat them with rods. 23 And when they had inflicted many blows upon them, they threw them into prison, ordering the jailer to keep them safely. 24 Having received this order, he put them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks.
According to this account, Paul and Silas were publicly beaten, stripped, and imprisoned in Philippi. Notably, Paul does not recount the details of the public beating in the letter. He simply assumes that the Philippians remember the episode. The remarks in the letter rings with the authentic voice of a warm, affectionate mind addressing friends who had witnessed his humiliation when he was in Philippi.
This connection between Acts and Philippians is further supported by the evidence, discussed previously, that Acts and Philippians are independent of one another.
8. You Know Timothy’s Proven Worth
In Philippians 2:19-22, we read,
19 I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, so that I too may be cheered by news of you. 20 For I have no one like him, who will be genuinely concerned for your welfare. 21 For they all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ. 22 But you know Timothy’s proven worth, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel.
Apparently, therefore, the Philippians knew Timothy and had first-hand experience of his faithful contribution to Paul’s ministry while in Philippi.
Turning to Acts 16:1-3, we read of Paul encountering Timothy and having Timothy accompany him on his subsequent travels. Following the beginning of the journey, there is no further explicit allusion to Timothy. Paul’s journeys, however, are described in detail, indicating that Paul travelled across Asia Minor to Troas, as shown on the map below.
From Troas, Paul travelled on to the province of Macedonia, as shown on the map below.
When Paul arrived at Philippi, the narrative gives an account of Paul’s ministry there in some detail, including the persecution he endured there. Acts 17 indicates that Paul’s next port of call, after leaving Philippi, is Thessalonica. Following a riot, he was forced to move on to Berea. The Jewish mob followed him to Berea, agitating the crowds there as well. Acts 17:14 indicates that “the brothers immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there.” This implies that, in fact, Timothy had been with Paul throughout all of these travels from the time that Paul first had him accompany him.
Now, Acts 16:1 does suggest to the reader that Paul’s intention was that Timothy join him in his ministry for a significant time. It appears that Timothy accompanied Paul from this time, though his presence is never explicitly stated for a considerable time in Acts, until the incidental reference in 17:14. Thus, apparently Timothy was in fact present with Paul during his ministry in Philippi. In turn, this dovetails with the allusion in Philippians 2:22 to the Philippians knowing first-hand of Timothy’s proven worth and their having witnessed Timothy laboring with Paul as a son with a father. But this is a highly indirect connection.
9. Supplying for Paul’s Need
There is an undesigned coincidence relating to Paul’s time in Corinth (Acts 18:1-5):
After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, 3 and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade. 4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks. 5 When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus.
Paul encounters Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth, who had been exiled from Rome at the instigation of the emperor Claudius. The Roman biographer Suetonius also mentions this episode: “He [Claudius] banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus,” (Life of Claudius 25). [6] Our text in Acts indicates that Paul worked with them as a tentmaker to earn his keep during the week, and that he engaged in his evangelistic work on the Sabbath day, when he went into the synagogue and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ.
Unfortunately, the ESV translation of Acts 18:5 does not do justice to the nuance of the Greek. The Greek text says that Paul συνείχετο τῷ λόγῳ. The NIV rendering is more precise: “When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.” The relevant verb is συνέχω. According to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), one of the verb’s senses (and the most appropriate for this context), is [7],
to occupy someone’s attention intensely, συνέχομαί τινι I am occupied with or absorbed in someth. (Herodian 1, 17, 9 ἡδοναῖς; Diog. L. 7, 185 γέλωτι; Wsd 17:19) συνείχετο τῷ λόγῳ (Paul) was wholly absorbed in preaching Ac 18:5 (EHenschel, Theologia Viatorum 2, ’50, 213–15; cp. Arrian, Anab. 7, 21, 5 ἐν τῷδε τῷ πόνῳ ξυνείχοντο=they were intensively engaged in this difficult task) in contrast to the activity cited in vs. 3.
This Lexicon even uses Acts 18:5 as an example of this usage of the verb.
The New English Translation notes, citing the same Lexicon, concurs [8]:
The imperfect συνείχετο (suneicheto) has been translated as an ingressive imperfect (“became wholly absorbed …”), stressing the change in Paul’s activity once Silas and Timothy arrived. At this point Paul apparently began to work less and preach more.
Thus apparently, in response to the arrival of Silas and Timothy from Macedonia, Paul changed his ministry model such that he devoted himself entirely to the work of the ministry. What prompted this change? Acts does not inform us. However, we read in 2 Corinthians 11:7-9:
7 Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God’s gospel to you free of charge? 8 I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you. 9 And when I was with you and was in need, I did not burden anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied my need. So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way.
Apparently the brothers who came from Macedonia (whom we learn from Acts included Silas and Timothy) brought financial aid to Paul, which enabled him to devote himself entirely to the ministry. This detail, however, is not supplied by Acts. This is further corroborated by Philippians 4:14-16, in which we read (in a letter addressed to one of the churches in Macedonia),
14 Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble. 15 And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. 16 Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again.
This, once again, serves to confirm the account in Acts — which reveals that Paul was willing to work for his keep as a tentmaker. In other words, he was evidently not in ministry for the purpose of extorting people for money. Moreover, the account in Acts continues with a note about another episode of opposition against Paul: “And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, ‘Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles,’” (Acts 18:6). This coincidence is all the more striking given the independence of Acts and 2 Corinthians, as demonstrated earlier in this article.
10. The Beginning of the Gospel
In the text discussed in the previous example, Paul refers to the Philippians’ supplying for Paul’s need “in the beginning of the gospel,” (Phil 4:15). This phrase naturally distinguishes the earlier phase of his ministry among them from what followed. Although the expression does not explicitly require later visits, it suggests an ongoing relationship with the Philippians rather than a single encounter. Moreover, this is consistent with the broader tone of the epistle, which reflects Paul’s familiarity and his warmth towards the Philippians, recalling their long partnership in the gospel (Phil 1:3-8; 4:10-20). This implication is independently confirmed by Acts, which records that Paul, after his first visit to Philippi (recorded in Acts 16), returned to Philippi on a second occasion prior to his writing Philippians (Acts 20:6).
11. The Duration of Paul’s Imprisonment
Various clues in the epistle to the Philippians indicate that the letter was written towards the end of Paul’s imprisonment in Rome, after a significant period of time as a prisoner there. For example, Paul notes that his prolonged bonds have served to advanced the gospel, and that it has “become known throughout the whole imperial guard and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ,” (Phil 1:12-13). Moreover, “most of the brothers, having become confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, are much more bold to speak the word without fear,” (Phil 1:14). Furthermore, a significant passage of time is necessarily implied by the exchange of news concerning Epaphroditus’ illness – his sickness in Rome, the concern of the Philippians upon learning of it, and Paul’s own knowledge of their reaction (Phil 1:25-30). Paul also seems to suggest that he senses that the resolution of his case is approaching, whether through martyrdom (2:17) or release (2:23-24).
This internal consistency in the epistle aligns with the account in Acts, which records that Paul “lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance,” (Acts 28:30-31).
1 Thessalonians
12. Paul, Silvanus and Timothy
The greeting at the beginning of 1 Thessalonians indicates that it was sent by Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy (1 Thess 1:1). Turning over to Acts 17:1,10, we are not told explicitly that Paul & Silas were involved in Paul’s ministry in Thessalonica. It is only in Acts 17:14-15, when Luke writes 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.
13. The Arrival of Silas & Timothy from Macedonia
There are also strong 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). This correlates with the arrival of Silas and Timothy in Corinth from Macedonia in Acts 18:5.
14. Shamefully Treated in Philippi
In 1 Thessalonians 2:2, Paul writes, “though we had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know, we had boldness in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in the midst of much conflict.” How did the Thessalonians know about the shameful way in which Paul was treated in Philippi?
Turning to Acts 16, we are informed that Paul and Silas were imprisoned in Philippi, though they were freed from the prison by an earthquake. The jailor, fearing that the prisoners had escaped, was about to take his own life, when Paul assures him that all are present. The jailor then becomes a believer and, along with his whole household, is baptized. The magistrates then order their release. In verse 37, we read of Paul’s complaint: “They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men who are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into prison; and do they now throw us out secretly? No! Let them come themselves and take us out.” This complaint elicits an apology from the magistrates, and Paul and Silas are asked to leave the city.
This is the shameful treatment to which Paul refers in his letter to the Thessalonians. And where is Paul’s very next port of call (Acts 17:1ff)? Thessalonica! Indeed, the route taken by Paul was a major Roman highway, the Via Egnatia. The cities of Amphipolis and Apollonia were overnight stops along that highway. Paul’s route from Philippi to Thessalonica is depicted in the map below.
Thus, one can envision Paul arriving in Thessalonica and recounting to the new converts what just happened in Philippi.
The evidential value of this connection is further strengthened by the fact that the author of Acts does not appear to be using 1 Thessalonians as a source for the composition of his narrative (1 Thessalonians is arguably Paul’s earliest letter). 1 Thessalonians 1:9 emphasizes the conversion of pagans in Thessalonica (“…you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God…”) whereas Acts emphasizes the conversion of Jews and god-fearing gentiles (Acts 17:1-4). These are not mutually exclusive, but it does point to the independence of Acts and 1 Thessalonians. 1 Thessalonians appears to be addressed to a mixed audience, which included Jews as well as pagans. Indeed, 1 Thessalonians contains allusions to ideas that would make little sense to Gentiles lacking familiarity with Jewish eschatological thought (e.g. 1 Thess 4:14-17). Paul also distinguishes believers from Gentiles, whose ways they ought not copy (1 Thess 4:4-5).
15. Jewish Instigation and Gentile Action
In 1 Thessalonians 2:14, Paul writes,
For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews…
Here, Paul implies that the instigators of the persecution in Thessalonica are their “own countrymen” rather than the Jews. He then alludes to those Jews who drove him out of Thessalonica (2:15-16):
…who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved…
In this text, Paul indicates that the persecution in Thessalonica involved both Jews as well as gentiles. While the Thessalonians were being persecuted by their fellow gentiles, the Jews had also somehow been involved.
Paul’s expression of anger towards the Jews in this passage is uncharacteristic of Paul, who emphasizes his love for the Hebrew nation, that he does not wish to bring a charge against them, and that he continuously prayed for their salvation (e.g. Acts 28:19; Rom 10:1ff). This uncharacteristically bitter sentiment seems to require a special circumstance pertaining to a specific group of Jews who had been responsible for something that particularly irritated Paul. Paul does not take the time to explain the circumstances in Acts – his audience, the Thessalonian Christians, would have known this already. When we turn to the book of Acts, such a circumstance is precisely what we find. According to Acts 17:5-9, the Jews stirred up the crowds (which we presume to be largely gentiles) by spreading the slanderous accusation that Paul was teaching sedition against Caesar. Verses 6-9 tell us that the mob of Jews “dragged Jason and some of the brothers before the city authorities…” The city authorities then demand a legal bond from Jason and the rest as a bond against further disturbances, and release them. Paul then leaves the city of Thessalonica for Berea.
This all makes a great deal of sense in terms of the contemporary political situation. Beyond the Jewish territories in the Roman empire, it was harder for Jews to directly persecute Paul or gentile believers. They therefore had to resort to agitating a large mob of gentiles against Paul and his companions. According to Acts 17:10-15, the Jewish opponents of Paul followed as far as Berea to employ the same strategy there.
Thus, the Thessalonian Christians endured persecution from “their own countrymen” rather than from the Jews directly. Nonetheless, Paul expresses his indignation against those Jewish opponents who drove him out of Thessalonica and subsequently Berea, due to their opposition to him preaching the gospel to the gentiles.
This background, supplied by Acts, illuminates Paul’s uncharacteristically strong language against the Jews in this letter, together with the complexity of the situation in Thessalonica that Paul implies, without explanation, in this epistle.
This coincidence is particularly striking given the strong case, laid out earlier in this essay, that the account in Acts is independent of this epistle.
16. Driven Out of Macedonia
As discussed in the previous example, we read in Acts 17:5-9 about the persecution endured by Paul from a mob of Jews who stirred up trouble for him in Thessalonica. Paul thus had to leave in haste to go to Berea (Acts 17:10). We read in verse 13 that “when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Berea also, they came there too, agitating and stirring up the crowds.” Paul thus, again, had to leave in haste to travel to Athens — “Then the brothers immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there. Those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens, and after receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they departed.” Paul’s route from Berea to Athens is shown in the map below.
Acts leaves unexplained why Paul left behind Silas and Timothy. This unexplained allusion is itself a hallmark of verisimilitude in the text. It is the texture of testimony — one does not typically leave loose ends like this in a fictitious work. Moreover, Silas and Timothy are instructed to rejoin Paul “as soon as possible.” We are therefore led to presume that they did rejoin Paul in Athens shortly thereafter (though the text does not indicate explicitly). Acts 17:16 actually says that “Paul was waiting for them at Athens.” Nonetheless, they are next reported to rejoin Paul not in Athens but in Corinth — and they arrived not from Athens but from Macedonia, where the cities of Thessalonica and Berea are (Acts 18:5).
What accounts for this gap in the text? An explanation is provided by 1 Thessalonians 3:1-5:
Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone, 2 and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s coworker in the gospel of Christ, to establish and exhort you in your faith, 3 that no one be moved by these afflictions. For you yourselves know that we are destined for this. 4 For when we were with you, we kept telling you beforehand that we were to suffer affliction, just as it has come to pass, and just as you know. 5 For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent to learn about your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and our labor would be in vain.
Thus, Paul indicates, under the circumstances, he had been concerned for the wellbeing of the Christians in Thessalonica, and so he commissioned Timothy to go back from Athens to Thessalonica to check on the believers there. This explains the gap in the account in Acts, and thereby corroborates the account in Acts. This undesigned coincidence is, again, all the more striking given the independence (as I have shown) between Acts and 1 Thessalonians.
The Pastoral Epistles
17. Lois, Eunice, and Timothy’s Upbringing
One example of where the letter of 2 Timothy dovetails casually with the book of Acts is the statement in 2 Timothy 3:14-15: “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” We also read in 2 Timothy 1:5, “I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well.” This means that one, or both, of Timothy’s parents must have been Jewish.
When we turn to the book of Acts, we read that “Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek.” (Acts 16:1). Notice also that Acts makes mention of the mother alone being a believer. Acts suggests that the father was not a believer. Likewise, in the epistle, Paul praises Timothy’s mother Eunice for her belief (even making mention of her name, which is not given in Acts). But he makes no mention of the father. Incidental corroborations such as this between Acts and the Pastoral epistles are all the more striking given that it is apparent that the author of the Pastorals, supposing him to be a forger, probably was not using the Acts of the Apostles as a source (as evidenced by the challenge, discussed previously, of integrating the Pastorals into the chronology found in Acts). For the same reason, it is not probable that Luke used the Pastoral epistles as a source (I am also persuaded that Acts was composed during Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome, which would have been prior to the composition of this letter). Furthermore, it seems prima facie unlikely that a forger would invent out of whole cloth Timothy’s grandmother (who is never mentioned anywhere else) and refer to Timothy’s being raised and instructed by women rather than men, appealing to Timothy to follow what he learned from those women. It would hardly commend the story to anyone to invent Timothy’s grandmother Lois and mother Eunice. Jewish men would typically base their claim to orthodoxy on a male line of instruction. Indeed, Paul’s own instruction would have carried much more weight, and one might expect a fraud to emphasize Paul’s own teaching of Timothy. This would even have fitted with Paul’s own personality elsewhere (c.f. 1 Cor 4:16; 1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thess 1:6).
18. Alexander the Coppersmith
An example of an undesigned coincidence in the Pastoral epistles relates to Paul’s allusion to Alexander the coppersmith, whom he notes “did me great harm,” (2 Tim 4:14-15, c.f. 1 Tim 1:18-20). Given that Timothy is placed by the Pastoral letters in Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3), the most obvious individual for a forger to choose as Paul’s enemy would be Demetrius the silversmith (Acts 19:23-28). Instead, Paul cautions Timothy concerning an otherwise unknown metalworker. The passing allusion in 1 Timothy 1:18-20 does not even indicate that Alexander was a smith. Interestingly, Acts 19 reports a riot in Ephesus that involved not only Demetrius, who instigated it, but also “workmen in similar trades” (Acts 19:25). It is striking, then, that the Alexander of 2 Timothy is said to be a workman who occupied a trade similar to that of Demetrius.
19. Erastus the City Treasurer
Another example of an undesigned coincidence can be found in 2 Timothy 4:20: “Erastus remained at Corinth, and I left Trophimus, who was ill, at Miletus.” Paul here mentions his solitude, and urges Timothy, “Do your best to come before winter,” (verse 21). We know from Acts 19:22 that Timothy and Erastus were “two of his helpers”, which means Timothy and Erastus evidently knew each other well (hence it is fitting that Erastus should be mentioned in a letter to Timothy). It seems also a fair presumption that the city of Corinth was Erastus’ home, hence why Paul mentions to Timothy that “Erastus remained at Corinth.” It is striking, then, that when we turn to the epistle to the Romans (16:23), we read, “Erastus, the city treasurer, and our brother Quartus, greet you.” Now it turns out that Erastus was the city treasurer for the city from which Paul was writing his epistle to the Romans. If, then, we can establish a firm case, on completely independent grounds, that the epistle to the Romans was written in Corinth, this then would explain why Paul at the close of his letter specifically mentions Erastus’ greeting of the Roman church — and it would be a coincidence too subtle to be the product of design.
20. Persecution at Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra
A further example is found in 2 Timothy 3:10-11, in which we read, “You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me.” The Antioch here mentioned was not Antioch the capital of Syria but rather Antioch in Pisidia, to which, as we read in Acts 13, Paul was sent along with Barnabas. The book of Acts tells us (13:50-51), “But the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district. But they shook off the dust from their feet against them and went to Iconium.” Acts 14:1-7 tells us of the persecution Paul endured in Iconium at the hands of both Jews and gentiles, occasioned by his preaching in the Jewish synagogue. As a consequence, Paul had to flee to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and the surrounding country, where they continued proclaiming the gospel. In Acts 14:19-21, we read of Paul being stoned and dragged out of the city by Jews who came from Antioch and Iconium. It is thus evident that this account relates directly to the persecutions that Paul references in 2 Timothy 3:10-11, where he alludes specifically to his “persecutions and sufferings that happened to [him] at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra.” We thus have a conformity between Acts and 2 Timothy in terms of his persecutions in those three cities of Antioch, Iconium and Lystra. There is also conformity of the fact that he suffered these persecutions in immediate succession and in the order in which Paul mentions the cities in his letter to Timothy.
21. Lystra and Derbe
Another point that bears mentioning is that, in Acts, Lystra and Derbe are frequently mentioned together, whereas in the quotation from 2 Timothy, Lystra is mentioned while Derbe is omitted. And sure enough, in the book of Acts, we do not read of Paul facing any persecutions in Derbe. Rather, we are told in Acts, “But when the disciples gathered about him, he rose up and entered the city, and on the next day he went on with Barnabas to Derbe. When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch,” (Acts 14:21). Thus, there is perfect correspondence not only between the enumeration of the cities in which he faced persecution, but also where that enumeration stops, and the accounts of his persecutions as given in Acts.
22. Timothy, a Witness to Paul’s Persecution
Paul also seems to imply that Timothy witnessed these persecutions that happened to him in these cities, or at the very least is very well acquainted with them and can bring them to mind. This too can be corroborated from Acts. According to Acts, Paul made a second missionary journey through the same country. The purpose for this trip, as stated in Acts 15:36, was to check on those who had been converted during the first journey to see how they were doing. In Acts 16:1-2, we further learn, “Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium.” We thus are informed that either Derbe or Lystra was Timothy’s hometown. It is clear from the text that Timothy had already been converted by the time of this visit. And Paul himself refers to Timothy as “my true child in the faith” (1 Tim 1:2) and “my beloved child” (2 Tim 1:2). This indicates that Timothy was most likely Paul’s own convert. It then follows that Timothy was almost certainly converted upon Paul’s previous journey through these cities, at just the time when the apostle had undergone the persecutions alluded to in his letter to Timothy.
Acts is High-Resolution Reportage
Cumulatively, the evidence surveyed in the foregoing marshals a compelling case that the author of Luke-Acts was very well informed about Paul’s itinerary and travels, close up to the facts, and historically conscientious. While each individual example is of modest value when considered in isolation, they amount to a very strong argument when taken in aggregate that is difficult to dismiss as accidental (particularly when you factor in the further forty examples reviewed in my previous article).
It is also highly significant, as I showed at the beginning of this essay, that Acts and the Pauline epistles appear to be independent of one another – indeed, the evidence suggests that Luke had not read any of the epistles. This makes the undesigned coincidences reviewed in this essay all the more striking.
The coincidences reviewed in this essay and in the preceding one span multiple facets of Paul’s ministry – his travels, imprisonments, companions, financial circumstances, and numerous incidental personal relationships. If Acts is anchored in genuine historical memory, this is precisely what should be expected. The accounts bear the texture of authentic reportage.
Footnotes
1. William Paley, Horae Paulinæ; or, The Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced by a Comparison of the Epistles Which Bear His Name, with the Acts of the Apostles, and with One Another (London: R. Faulder, 1790).
2. Ibid.
3. Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Tampa, FL: DeWard Publishing Company, 2017), 186.
4. William Paley, Horae Paulinæ; or, The Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced by a Comparison of the Epistles Which Bear His Name, with the Acts of the Apostles, and with One Another (London: R. Faulder, 1790).
5. Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Chillicothe, OH: DeWard Publishing Company, 2017), 216.
6. C. Suetonius Tranquillus, Suetonius: The Lives of the Twelve Caesars; An English Translation, Augmented with the Biographies of Contemporary Statesmen, Orators, Poets, and Other Associates, ed. Alexander Thomson (Medford, MA: Gebbie & Co., 1889).
7. William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 971.
8. Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Ac 18:5.