Any discussion of the evidence for the resurrection must first ascertain what the original apostolic witnesses claimed and whether those claims are best explained by the resurrection, or by some alternative hypothesis. The contemporary discussion of the case for the resurrection has largely focused around 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, a text believed by many scholars to represent an ancient creedal tradition that Paul had received from the Jerusalem apostles and which he passed on to the believers in Corinth. [1] Paul’s words in verse 11 (“Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed”) also suggest that the message Paul presented to the Corinthians is the same as that proclaimed by the Jerusalem apostles. A popular criticism of this line of argument is that Paul makes no qualitative distinction between his own experience of the risen Jesus and those of the other apostles, using the Greek word ὤφθη to describe both. [2] Acts 9:1-9 indicates that Paul’s encounter with the risen Jesus, which took place after the ascension, did not involve the sort of physical interactions we read of the apostles having with Jesus following His death in the gospel accounts. This is also consistent with Paul’s own references to this event (e.g. Gal 1:11-17). On what basis, then, can we be confident that Paul understands the apostles to have had the sort of experiences with Jesus following His resurrection that we read of in the gospels? If we are not able to determine the nature of the claimed experiences of the risen Jesus, it is very difficult to evaluate the rationality of the disciples’ belief that Jesus had risen bodily from the dead. I am not optimistic that this case can be robustly made from the Pauline corpus alone.
It is undeniable that 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. If, then, it can be shown that Luke was indeed a travelling companion of Paul, it would be quite surprising if his understanding of the apostolic claim concerning the resurrection differed essentially from that of Paul.
There is an additional reason why Luke’s being a travelling companion of Paul is significant in our investigation of the resurrection. Luke claims to have received information from those who were originally eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life (Lk 1:1-4). Other scholars have argued strongly that Luke’s prologue is indicative that he had interviewed living eyewitnesses, rather than merely consulting written sources. [3, 4], though for economy of space I will not elaborate on this case here. Luke, moreover, claims to have been present with Paul during Paul’s visit to the Jerusalem church in Acts 21 when “all the elders [including James] were present” (Acts 21:18). Luke was present with Paul during his imprisonment in Caesarea Maritima (for at least two years), during which time he 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.
Internal Evidence for Luke Being Paul’s Travelling Companion
There are too many lines of evidence for Luke being a travelling companion of Paul to do justice to in the present paper. However, here I will offer a summary of the major lines of argument and a sample of the most significant classes of evidence.
First, there are the famous “we” passages, beginning in Acts 16, which are best understood as indicating the author’s presence in the scenes he narrates. Craig Keener observes that the “we” pronouns trail off when Paul travels through Philippi, only to reappear in Acts 20 when Paul passes once again through Philippi. [5] This is suggestive that the author had remained behind in Philippi and subsequently re-joined Paul when Paul returned through Philippi some six or seven years later.
Another category of evidence, first discovered by William Paley [6] and more recently developed by Lydia McGrew [7], is the phenomenon of undesigned coincidences between Acts and the letters of Paul – that is, interlockings between the sources that are best explained by the truth of the narrative in Acts. Here, I will offer ten examples.
1. 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 Barnabas 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.
2. Shameful Treatment 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).
3. Sending Timothy to Thessalonica
In Acts 17, Paul and Silas preached the gospel in Thessalonica (in Macedonia), but a Jewish mob forced them to move on to Berea. The mob followed Paul and Silas to Thessalonica, “agitating and stirring up the crowds,” (v. 13). Luke tells us that “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:
Thus, Paul left Silas and Timothy behind in Berea, with instructions to rejoin him as soon as possible. We thus are led to anticipate that Silas and Timothy rejoined Paul sometime in Athens. But the next time we read of them is, in fact, in Acts 18:5, when Paul is in Corinth – and they arrive in Corinth not from Athens, but from Macedonia. There is thus an unexplained gap in the account in Acts. Turning to 1 Thessalonians 3:1-5, however, we learn that, under the circumstances, Paul was concerned for the wellbeing of the Christians in Thessalonica, and therefore commissioned Timothy go return to Thessalonica to check up on the Christians there. Acts simply omits the sending of Timothy back from Athens. Thus, 1 Thessalonians explains this otherwise unaccounted-for gap in the account in Acts.
4. 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 that these two sources are independent of one another. 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. Furthermore, a major theme in the Corinthian letters, as well as Romans, is the collection being prepared for the relief of the saints in Jerusalem, which we shall discuss in more detail shortly. 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”). 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. 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.” [8]
5. 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, he 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 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, 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 below.
Acts 19:21-22 indicates that Timothy was, in fact, sent from Ephesus to Macedonia, though the text does not mention Corinth as his intended destination. Indeed, it is only from a passing reference in Acts 20:4 that we learn that Timothy did, in fact, make it to Corinth. This indirect connection, again, confirms the historicity of the account in Acts. 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 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.”
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. 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.”
7. 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. Timothy is related to Lystra and Derbe, even though this information was already supplied in Acts 16:1, and there is no apparent reason why this should be repeated here. It is, however, 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.
8. 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. 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.
9. 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.” [9] 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.
10. 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.
Numerous other instances of undesigned coincidences between Acts and Paul’s letters could be adduced. However, this should be sufficient to provide a sample of this kind of evidence that bears on the historicity of Acts.
External Evidence for Luke Being Paul’s Travelling Companion
The reliability of the book of Acts is also spectacularly well supported by extrabiblical secular sources, and its author demonstrates a knowledge of the world that is best explained by him being a travelling companion of Paul. Here, I shall give ten examples.
1. Sergius Paulus, the Proconsul
Acts 13:4-12 recounts Paul’s and Barnabas’ encounter with a magician by the name of Bar-Jesus, also called Elymas, on the island of Cyprus. Luke indicates that “he was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God,” (v. 7). However, Elymas “opposed them, seeking to turn to the proconsul away from the faith,” (v. 7). In response, Paul “looked intently at him and said, ‘You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and unable to see the sun for a time.’ Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand,” (v. 10-11). So convincing is this miracle that it results in the conversion of the Proconsul, Sergius Paulus (v. 12).
One specific detail that Luke gets right is that Cyprus was under the governorship of a Pronconsul. At the time of Paul’s journey (47-48 C.E.), there were about 12-15 senatorial provinces (which were under the governorship of a Proconsul), compared to a larger number of imperial provinces (which were under the governorship of legates, who were directly under the emperor’s control). Senatorial provinces were considered to be more peaceful and civilized, and therefore did not require troops to maintain the peace. Imperial provinces, on the other hand (such as Judea) had a standing military presence. Cyprus became a senatorial province in 22 B.C.E., meaning it was governed by a Proconsul instead of a legate or prefect (Cassius Dio, Historiae Romanae 54.4). If Luke was simply making up details with no connection to actual events, it would have been easy for him to mistakenly call the governor a legate or to use some generic title. In fact, the evidence suggests that, by the time of the Flavian dynasty (commencing in 69 C.E. with the emperor Vespasian), Cyprus was transferred back to imperial control and under the authority of legates. If Acts were composed after 70 C.E., as many scholars maintain, it would have been even easier for Luke to err at this point. In an age before the internet and ease of access to information, small points of specialized local knowledge, such as this, evince the credibility of the account in Acts, since it would be significantly easier to get those details wrong than it would be to get them right. Details such as this would not be in the stock of common knowledge across the empire.
Another remarkable confirmation of the account in Acts is the identification of the Proconsul as Sergius Paulus. A Greek inscription of Soloi, on the northeast coast of Cyprus, is dated “in the Proconsulship of Paulus.” This inscription is shown in the photograph below:
Though we cannot say for certain, it is quite plausible that this is the same individual spoken of in Acts. Though the precise date of the inscription is uncertain, it likely belongs to the first century C.E. This individual is said to have served as Proconsul during the tenth year of an emperor, though the name is missing from the inscription. Ben Witherington notes, “If the emperor in question was Claudius, the inscription would date to about A.D. 50, but the very date line seems to be a later addition. It thus remains possible that this refers to the same Sergius Paulus as mentioned in Acts, but it is also possible on epigraphical grounds that the inscription comes from as late as the time of Hadrian in the second century.” [10] Nonetheless, regardless of whether this is the same individual or not, the inscription demonstrates a connection of the family to the island of Cyprus, consistent with the account in Acts.
There is another interesting inscription that was identified in Pisidian Antioch, shown below.
This inscription bears the name of “L. Sergius Paullus the younger, son of L.” (note that Paullus is the Latin spelling, whereas Paulus is the Greek spelling). It is probable that “L” stands for Lucius, given the limited number of commonly used first names among Roman men. The inscription reads, “To L(ucius) Sergius Paullus, the younger, son of L(ucius), one of the four commissioners in charge of the Roman streets, tribune of the soldiers of the sixth legion styled Ferrata, quaestor…” It has even been suggested that this could be the son, or another relative, of the Proconsul mentioned in Acts. Given the connection of this individual to Pisidian Antioch, is it a coincidence that Paul and Barnabas travelled to Pisidian Antioch immediately following these events, after Sergius Paulus’ conversion to Christianity? Pisidian Antioch was not the nearest or most obvious stop after Cyprus. It is plausible that Sergius Paulus convinced Paul to travel to Pisidian Antioch with a desire for his relatives there to hear the gospel.
2. Healing the Cripple at Lystra
In Acts 14:8-10, we read,
8 Now at Lystra there was a man sitting who could not use his feet. He was crippled from birth and had never walked. 9 He listened to Paul speaking. And Paul, looking intently at him and seeing that he had faith to be made well, 10 said in a loud voice, “Stand upright on your feet.” And he sprang up and began walking.
In this account, Paul miraculously heals a man in Lystra who had been crippled since birth, a feat which greatly impresses the crowds. Verse 11 indicates that, “when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lycaonian, ‘The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!’” Luke indicates that this was said in the Lycaonian language. The use of a native language, rather than Greek, was quite uncommon. Colin Hemer notes that “The use of a native language is unusual in the cosmopolitan, Hellenized society in which Paul moved. Lystra, however, as a Roman colony in a less developed part of Anatolia, preserved a language otherwise attested in a gloss in Stephanus of Byzantium.” [11] While Greek was widely spoken in urban centers and among the elite, rural populations (particularly in more isolated areas) retained their native tongue. This is, therefore, a specific (and unusual) local detail about Lycaonia that Luke gets right.
According to verse 12, “Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker.” A number of inscriptions have been identified that confirm that Zeus-Hermes was the local cult in Lystra. The first century Roman poet Ovid writes, in his poem Metamorphoses, about Zeus and Hermes visiting a town in Phrygia, disguised as mortals seeking hospitality. [12] Only an elderly couple, Baucis and Philemon, welcome them, and as a reward for their kindness, the gods transform their humble home into a temple and grant them their wish to die together. Phrygia and Lycaonia were both located in central Anatolia (modern day Turkey) and the story of Baucis and Philemon is generally thought to be set close to the border with Lycaonia. This is, therefore, another specific local detail that Acts gets right. The fact that Barnabas is identified as Zeus (the greater of the two gods), whereas Paul is identified as Hermes also reflects the ancient belief that, when two deities visited earth, the lesser god did the speaking.
These specific details relating to Lystra, related accurately by Acts, suggests that the account of the healing of the crippled man reliably represents Paul’s testimony.
3. Lydia of Thyatira
Acts 16:11-15 recounts the conversion of Lydia from the city of Thyatira in Asia Minor. Luke mentions in passing that she was a trader of purple dye. The city of Thyatira was, in fact, a center of the trade in purple dye, as attested by at least seven inscriptions from the city. As F.F. Bruce explains, “The people of that area were famed for their skill in the manufacture of purple dye, extracted from the juice of the madder root. This was still in use there for the dyeing of carpets at the end of the nineteenth century, before it was superseded by chemical dyes. Lydia had evidently come to Philippi as a trader in that dye. There is inscriptional evidence for the existence of a guild of purple merchants in Philippi. But she had possibly learned to worship the true God in her native Thyatira; there was probably a Jewish community there. [13]
4. Paul Takes a Walk
In Acts 20:13-14, Paul apparently decided to walk from Troas to Assos on the tip of Asia Minor, having the ship on which his friends were sailing pick him up at Assos. A natural question arises as to how this could work, since presumably the ship could sail faster than Paul could walk on foot. However, as illustrated in the map below, the ship had to go around the cape (Cape Lectum), and so there would indeed have been time for Paul to walk and meet the ship.
As Colin Hemer explains, “Paul’s staying behind at Troas and travelling overland to rejoin the ship’s company at Assos is appropriate to local circumstances, where the ship had to negotiate an exposed coast and double Cape Lectum before reaching Assos.” [14]
5. Patara
In the middle of one of the so-called “we” passages, the author gives a detailed account of the last trip to Jerusalem (Acts 21). In verse 1-2, we read, “And when we had parted from them and set sail, we came by a straight course to Cos, and the next day to Rhodes, and from there to Patara. And having found a ship crossing to Phoenicia, we went aboard and set sail.” Thus, he informs us that they found a ship at Patara (in Asia Minor) that was sailing to Phoenicia, which is just north of Jerusalem. As it turns out, Patara was indeed a port used in the corn trade adn would have been a likely place to find a ship headed in that direction. Colin Hemer notes, “Patara (like Myra) was a port used by the Alexandrian corn-fleet. Both became important places of trans-shipment, and imperial granaries were built at these two ports under Hadrian. It is notable that the city’s name is correctly given as a neuter plural, as in the local epigraphy and elsewhere in literature.” [15]
6. “I Bought This Citizenship for a Large Sum”
In Acts 22:25-29, Paul was standing before the Roman tribune:
25 But when they had stretched him out for the whips, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?” 26 When the centurion heard this, he went to the tribune and said to him, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman citizen.” 27 So the tribune came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?” And he said, “Yes.” 28 The tribune answered, “I bought this citizenship for a large sum.” Paul said, “But I am a citizen by birth.” 29 So those who were about to examine him withdrew from him immediately, and the tribune also was afraid, for he realized that Paul was a Roman citizen and that he had bound him.
What is the historical background to the Tribune’s words, “I bought this citizenship for a large sum”? The Roman historian Cassius Dio informs us that, during the reign of Claudius, it was introduced that Roman citizenships could be purchased, initially for a hefty price. Indeed, “though the privilege was at first sold only for large sums, it later became so cheapened by the facility with which it could be obtained that it came to be a common saying, that a man could become a citizen by giving the right person some bits of broken glass,” [16] This illuminates the significance of the Tribune’s words — he paid a large sum for his citizenship and presumes that Paul obtained it much more cheaply. Paul thus informs the Tribune that he is a birthright citizen.
7. Paul Before Ananias
In Acts 23:1-5, Paul, having been apprehended and brought before the Jewish council, was struck on the mouth at the behest of Ananias the high priest. This comports strikingly with the portrayal of Ananias’ character given by Josephus (Antiquities 20.9.2) [17]:
(205) but as for the high priest Ananias, he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money; he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents; (206) he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the threshing floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. (207) So the other high priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants without anyone being able to prohibit them; so that [some of the] priests, that of old were wont to be supported with those tithes, died for want of food.
Paul responds by pointing out the hypocrisy of Ananias. To this, those who were standing by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” Paul’s response is somewhat odd: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” This raises a natural question – why is it that Paul did not realize who the high priest was? This Ananias was the son of Nebedinus (Antiquities 20.5.3), who occupied the office of high priest when Quadratus (Felix’s predecessor) was president of Syria. Josephus reports that he was sent bound to Rome by Quadratus in order to give an account of his actions to Claudius Caesar (Antiquities 20.6.2). As a result of the intercession on their behalf by Agrippa, they were dismissed and returned to Jerusalem. However, Ananias was not restored to his former office of high priest. Ananias was succeeded by Jonathan, as is indicated by the fact that Josephus refers to one called Jonathan occupying the office of high priest during the government of Felix, which would imply that Ananias’ high priesthood was interrupted (Antiquities 20.8.5). Jonathan himself was assassinated inside the temple (Antiquities 20.8.5).
Following Jonathan’s death, the office of the high priest was not occupied until Ismael, the son of Fabi, was appointed by King Agrippa (Antiquities 20.8.8). The events that are recorded in Acts 23 took place precisely in this interval. Ananias was in Jerusalem and the office of the high priesthood lay vacant. It seems, then, that Ananias acted, by his own authority, in the assumed capacity of the high priest. This, then, illuminates Paul’s words in Acts 23:5: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest.” Luke doesn’t even take the time to explain the historical backstory in his account of this event. The sources interlock in a way that points to the truth of the narrative we find in Acts. Paul’s sarcastic tone in verse 5 is also consistent with the Pauline letters, wherein we observe the same sarcastic tone:
- 1 Corinthians 4:8-10: 8 Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you! … 10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute.
- 1 Corinthians 14:36: Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached?
- 2 Corinthians 11:19-21: 19 For you gladly bear with fools, being wise yourselves! 20 For you bear it if someone makes slaves of you, or devours you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face. 21 To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that!
- 2 Corinthians 12:13: For in what were you less favored than the rest of the churches, except that I myself did not burden you? Forgive me this wrong!
- Galatians 5:12: I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!
8. Felix and Drusilla
In Acts 24:24-25, Paul meets with the Roman procurator of Judea, Felix, along with his wife Drusilla. Drusilla would not have been a household name, and she would not have been widely known in the broader Greco-Roman world outside of Judea. It is thus impressive that Luke specifies her name and also indicates that she was Jewish. Those details are both confirmed by Josephus (Antiquities 20.7.2) [18]:
(141) But for the marriage of Drusilla with Azizus, it was in no long time afterward dissolved, upon the following occasion:—(142) While Felix was procurator of Judea, he saw this Drusilla, and fell in love with her; for she did indeed exceed all other women in beauty, and he sent to her a person whose name was Simon, one of his friends; a Jew he was, and by birth a Cypriot, and one who pretended to be a magician; and endeavored to persuade her to forsake her present husband, and marry him; and promised, that if she would not refuse him, he would make her a happy woman. (143) Accordingly she acted ill, and because she was desirous to avoid her sister Bernice’s envy, for she was very ill treated by her on account of her beauty, was prevailed upon to transgress the laws of her forefathers, and to marry Felix; and when he had had a son by her, he named him.
It is also noteworthy that, according to Josephus, Felix and Drusilla were in an adulterous marriage. This might illuminate Paul’s choice of conversation topics — “righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment” — and Felix’s resultant agitation (Acts 24:25).
9. Luke Travelled with Paul to Rome
Of particular interest for our purposes here, a cluster of confirming evidences bear on Luke’s presence with Paul at the Jerusalem church in Acts 21. [19] If it can be reliably shown that Luke accompanied Paul on his shipwrecked voyage from Caesarea Maritima to Rome in Acts 27, it follows that Luke was almost certainly present with Paul in Jerusalem (where he was arrested) in Acts 21. The report of that voyage notes that they “…sailed along Crete, close to the shore. But soon a tempestuous wind, called the northeaster, struck down from the land.” In confirmation of Luke’s report, there is indeed a well confirmed wind that rides over Crete from the Northeast and which is strongest at this exact time near the Day of Atonement in the Fall (Acts 27:9). [20] Acts 27:16 describes how the ship was blown off course towards a small island called Cauda, as shown in the map below.
What’s impressive is that the island of Cauda is more than 20 miles west-southwest of where the storm likely struck the travelers in the Bay of Messara. This is precisely where the trajectory of a northeaster should have carried them, and it is not the sort of information someone would have inferred without having been blown there. Ancients found it nearly impossible to properly locate islands this far out. Colin Hemer notes that “In the places where we can compare, Luke fares much better than the encyclopaedist Pliny, who might be regarded as the foremost first-century example of such a source. Pliny places Cauda (Gaudos) opposite Hierapytna, some ninety miles too far east (NH 4.12.61). Even Ptolemy, who offers a reckoning of latitude and longitude, makes a serious dislocation to the northwest, putting Cauda too near the western end of Crete, in a position which would not suit the unstudied narrative of our text (Ptol. Geog. 3.15.8).” [21]
Given Luke’s presence with Paul in Jerusalem in Acts 21 (and thus his demonstrated interaction with the Jerusalem apostles), we can conclude that Luke was in a position to know what was being claimed by the Jerusalem apostles in regard to the nature of the encounters with the risen Jesus. The next question we must address in our investigation is whether Luke faithfully records what those Jerusalem apostles were teaching concerning the resurrection.
10. Publius, the Chief Man of the Island
Luke tells us that, while on the island of Malta, following Paul’s shipwreck, “Now in the neighborhood of that place were lands belonging to the chief man of the island, named Publius (τῷ πρώτῳ τῆς νήσου ὀνόματι Ποπλίῳ), who received us and entertained us hospitably for three days,” (Acts 28:7). Ancient inscriptions confirm that the head official on Malta had the title “First Man of the Island,” just as Luke indicates. F.F. Bruce notes that this title is “vouched for in both Greek and Latin inscriptions as the proper designation of the Roman governor of Malta.” [22] Titus Kennedy also comments [23],
A 1st-century AD Greek inscription from the reign of Emperor Tiberius honored Prudens, a Roman of equestrian rank who was called “the first of the Maltese” and “father,” probably holding the same title and position as Publius did nearly 30 years later when Paul encountered him on the island near the end of AD 59.
Another Greek inscription from the time of Tiberius also notes a Prudens who was “the first [man] of Malta and Gozo.” The Romans had set up a local magistrate over the island, designated with the Latin title municipi Melitesium primus omnium (“the first over all in the municipality of Malta”) according to another 1st-century AD inscription mentioning a temple of Apollo. Serving under the governor of Sicily, the Roman province to which Malta belonged at that time, Publius would have been the local leader of the island.
Does Luke Accurately Report the Claimed Experiences of the Apostles?
So far, we have established that Luke not only claims to have received information from eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life, but that he also had direct access to living eyewitnesses to Jesus ministry and, in particular, purported witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. I have also previously noted that Luke’s demonstrated meticulousness and care as an historian already provide some reason to think that Luke has given an accurate report of what the Jerusalem apostles claimed concerning the resurrection of Jesus. Are there any other reasons? Numerous points of historical confirmation of the gospel of Luke indicate that, not only does Luke have access to witnesses to Jesus ministry, but he also extracted from those witnesses reliable information. Again, the case here is too vast to do justice to in this essay, but I shall content myself again to give a sample of ten examples. I will focus on points of confirmation that are not also found in Mark, one of Luke’s sources.
1. When Did Jesus Begin His Ministry?
According to Luke 3:1, Jesus began his public ministry “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.” Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio all place the beginning of Tiberias’ reign during the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Apuleius (Annals 1.7; Life of Augustus 98; Historiae Romanae 56.29). Suetonius also specifies that Augustus, at the time of his death, was “seventh-six years of age, wanting only thirty-five days,” (Life of Augustus 98). [24] The age of Augustus at death is also confirmed by Cassius Dio (Historiae Romanae 56.30). These indicators all place Augustus’ death quite precisely in the year 14 C.E, and these sources consistently indicate that Augustus died on the nineteenth day of August. Thus, the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar would fall in about 28 or 29 C.E.
In John 2:20, after Jesus says to the Jews “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” referring to his death and resurrection, the Jews retort that “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” According to Josephus, Herod the Great began construction work on the temple in “the eighteenth year of his reign” (Antiquities 15.379). [25] Since Herod the Great began to reign in 37 C.E., this would fall in 20 or 19 B.C. Forty-six years from this date is approximately 27 or 28 C.E. There is some degree of flexibility, however, since some time was taken to make preparations for Herod’s building project. Indeed, Josephus indicates that there was a concern among the people that Herod “would pull down the whole edifice, and not be able to bring his intentions to perfection for its rebuilding; and this danger appeared to them to be very great, and the vastness of the undertaking to be such as could hardly be accomplished,” (Antiquities 15.11.2). [26] Josephus continues [27],
…while they were in this disposition, the king encouraged them, and told them he would not pull down their temple till all things were gotten ready for building it up entirely again. And as he promised them this beforehand, so he did not break his word with them, but got ready a thousand wagons, that were to bring stones for the building, and chose out ten thousand of the most skillful workmen, and bought a thousand sacerdotal garments for as many of the priests, and had some of them taught the arts of stone cutters, and others of carpenters, and then began to build; but this not till everything was well prepared for the work.
Nonetheless, that these dates provided by Luke and John, when related to the information supplied by Josephus together with the Roman historians, correlate so closely is a striking confirmation of the narratives in both of these gospels.
2. Political Officials
Luke is quite specific about the political environment surrounding Jesus’ ministry. He notes that Jesus’ ministry began “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas…” (Lk 3:1). The reference to Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene is particularly striking. For some time, scholars struggled to identify this individual. Indeed, it looked as though Luke was in error, since there was in fact a ruler by the name of Lysanias who ruled Abilene (a region of Syria), but he was executed in 33 B.C. by Mark Antony at the behest of Cleopatra (Antiquities 15.4.1) — decades before Jesus was born. However, in 1912, an inscription (now known as the Abila inscription) was published. The Abila inscription is a dedicatory text from a freedman named Nymphaeus, who identifies himself as a servant of “Lysanias the tetrarch.” It honors the “lords Augusti,” a phrase interpreted to refer to Emperor Tiberius and his mother Livia. Given that Tiberius reigned from 14 to 37 CE and Livia died in 29 CE, the inscription is typically dated between 14 and 29 CE. This timing supports the existence of a later Lysanias, distinct from the earlier ruler executed by Mark Antony in 33 B.C., thereby confirming the account in Luke.
It is also noteworthy that Luke refers to two high priests, Annas and Caiaphas. Normally (as per the prescriptions of the Torah) there was only ever a single high priest. In agreement with Luke, however, Josephus also speaks of the priests in the plural number (e.g. Wars 2.15.4). Luke 3:1 indicates that Jesus’ public ministry began “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar…during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas.” A passage in Josephus, which explicitly speaks of two individuals occupying the office of high priest, can be found in Wars of the Jews 2.12.6: “but he [Quadratus] sent two others of those that were of the greatest power among men, and both Jonathan and Ananias, the high priests…” [28] William Paley also observes that, though John does not mention that both Ananas and Caiaphas held the office of high priest, “That Annas was a person in an eminent station, and possessed an authority co-ordinate with, or next to, that of the high priest properly so called, may be inferred from Saint John’s Gospel, which, in the history of Christ’s crucifixion, relates [in 18:13] that ‘the soldiers led him away to Annas first.’ And this might be noticed as an example of undesigned coincidence in the two evangelists.” [29] The reason for taking Jesus to Annas first, according to John 18:13, was that “he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year,” but no mention is made of him also serving in the capacity of high priest.
Interestingly, Acts 4:6 refers to “Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family,” thus referring only to Annas as high priest, even though he is listed alongside Caiaphas. In a similar vein, though speaking of a much later time, during the first Jewish revolt, Josephus writes of two individuals, “Joseph also, the son of Gorion, and Ananus the high priest,” whom he indicates “were chosen as governors of all affairs within the city,” (Wars 2.20.3). [30] William Paley comments, “Yet Ananus, though here called the high priest Ananus, was not then in the office of the high priesthood. The truth is, there is an indeterminateness in the use of this title in the Gospel: sometimes it is applied exclusively to the person who held the office at the time; sometimes to one or two more, who probably shared with him some of the powers or functions of the office; and, sometimes, to such of the priests as were eminent by their station or character; and there is the very same indeterminateness in Josephus.” [31]
According to Matthew 14:1-2, “At that time Herod the tetrarch heard about the fame of Jesus, and he said to his servants, ‘This is John the Baptist. He has been raised from the dead; that is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.'” Though Matthew is textually dependent on Mark 6, Matthew uniquely indicates that this was said “to his servants.” Did Matthew make up this detail? Or does he have independent reason to think that this was said to Herod’s servants? When we turn to Luke 8:1-3 (which is not a parallel account and concerning quite different subject matter), we learn that one of Jesus’ female disciples who followed him from Galilee was Joanna, who was married to Herod’s household manager — someone in the highest ranks of Herod’s employment. This dovetails neatly with Matthew’s statement that this was said by Herod to his servants, even providing an explanation for how Matthew could come to know what Herod was saying, presumably in the privacy of his own palace.
It also plausibly explains why the evangelists have a different take from Josephus on why Herod Antipas had John the Baptist imprisoned. According to Josephus, Herod imprisoned John due to his suspicious temper and fear of an uprising (Antiquities 18.5.2), whereas according to the gospels, Herod imprisoned John due to the latter’s persistent complaints against Herod’s adulterous affair with his brother Philip’s ex-wife Herodius (Mk 6:17-18; Mt 14:3-5; Lk 3:19-20). These motivations, of course, are not mutually exclusive, and presumably both were a factor in John’s arrest. Furthermore, Josephus indicates that, in the wake of the defeat of Herod’s armies by his former father-in-law, Aretas IV, King of the Nabateans (which ensued from Herod divorcing his previous wife, Phasaelis, Aretas’ daughter), the Jews blamed Herod’s defeat on the way he had handled the situation with John the Baptist a few years prior (Antiquities 18.5.2). This makes sense in light of the gospel accounts, according to which the reason why Herod had John imprisoned was due to Herod’s complaints against Herod’s adulterous affair — the very affair which, we learn from Josephus caused Herod’s defeat at the hands of Aretas. That one of Jesus’ female disciples was married to Herod’s steward (a detail unique to Luke) illuminates how the evangelists could have the inside knowledge concerning Herod’s motivations for having John imprisoned, even though they differ from the reasons given by Josephus.
4. The Setting of the Feeding of the Five Thousand
In John 6:1-7, we are told:
Some time after this, Jesus crossed to the far shore of the Sea of Galilee (that is, the Sea of Tiberias), and a great crowd of people followed him because they saw the signs he had performed by healing the sick. Then Jesus went up on a mountainside and sat down with his disciples. The Jewish Passover Festival was near. When Jesus looked up and saw a great crowd coming toward him, he said to Philip, “Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?” He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do. Philip answered him, “It would take more than half a year’s wages to buy enough bread for each one to have a bite!”
Now, Philip is a fairly minor character in the New Testament. And one might, naturally, be inclined to wonder why Jesus hasn’t turned to someone a little higher in the pecking order (such as Peter or John). Perhaps even Judas Iscariot would have been a more suitable choice for this role in the account, since John informs us elsewhere that he was responsible for the money bag (Jn 13:29).
A partial clue is provided in John 1:44: “Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.” Likewise, John 12:21 refers to “Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee.” What is so significant about Philip being from the town of Bethsaida? We don’t learn this until we read the parallel account in Luke’s gospel (9:10-17). At the opening of the account (verses 10-11) we are told,
“When the apostles returned, they reported to Jesus what they had done. Then he took them with him and they withdrew by themselves to a town called Bethsaida, but the crowds learned about it and followed him. He welcomed them and spoke to them about the kingdom of God, and healed those who needed healing.”
And so, we are informed by Luke (who does not mention Philip in this context at all) that the event was actually taking place in Bethsaida — the town from which Philip was from! Jesus thus turns to Philip, whom, he believed, would be familiar with the area. This also perhaps illuminates the involvement of Andrew (who was also from Bethsaida — Jn 1:44) in the reply. Andrew says to Jesus in John 6:9, “There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are they for so many?” One may conjecture that Andrew, being from Bethsaida where this miracle took place, knew the boy, or perhaps Jesus had directed his question to Philip and Andrew, both of whom were locals.
The reason for Jesus addressing Philip in John 6:5 is never explicitly spelled out in the text. Instead, one has to do the detective work of piecing together the clues drawn from John 6:5; John 12:21 (and 1:44); and Luke 9:10-17. This is precisely the sort of casual connection between accounts that one might expect to see in historical reportage, though it is more surprising given the hypothesis of fictionalization.
Another confirmation of the setting of this event as being in Bethsaida is Matthew 11:21, where Jesus denounces the unrepentant cities, saying, “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” The reader is left wondering what miracles were performed in these cities. We are not told in Matthew’s gospel. It is only in light of Luke’s account of the feeding of the five thousand (chapter 9), in which we are told of the event’s occurrence in Bethsaida, that this statement begins to make sense. Although Matthew 14:13-21 does narrate the feeding of the five thousand, no mention is made of Bethsaida. Furthermore, Matthew, who often arranged his material thematically rather than chronologically, gives his account of the feeding of the five thousand some three chapters subsequent to the pronouncement of woe upon Bethsaida. Only by comparing the account in Luke do we discover that the feeding of the five thousand in fact transpired before the woes were pronounced by Jesus upon Bethsaida.
Strikingly, Luke’s mention of Bethsaida as the location of the feeding found is found in an apparently unrelated context — that is, the pericope in which it occurs has absolutely nothing to do with the feeding of the five thousand. Jesus simply refers generally to the mighty deeds performed in Chorazin and Bethsaida. There is nothing in the immediate context to suggest that Jesus is making an allusion to the feeding of the five thousand. Indeed, the fact that Matthew contains no information about any miracle performed in Chorazin undermines the idea that the reason Luke mentions Bethsaida as the setting of the feeding of the five thousand miracle is to fill in the missing information in relation to Jesus’ statement in Matthew 11:21.
5. Jesus Rejected in Samaria
In Luke 9:51-56, we read of Jesus’ rejection by the Samaritans when he attempted to pass through Samaria on his way to Jerusalem:
51 When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. 52 And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make preparations for him. 53 But the people did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. 54 And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” 55 But he turned and rebuked them. 56 And they went on to another village.
Since Samaria lay between Galilee and Judea (see the map of this region earlier in this article), the Galilean Jews would need to pass through Galilee to get to Jerusalem. This exacerbated tensions between the Jews and Samaritans. The Samaritans claimed to be the true descendants of the northern Israelite tribes and upheld Mount Gerizim, rather than Jerusalem, as the legitimate place of worship. In contrast, the Jews considered the Jerusalem temple to be the only proper site for sacrifice and worship. Understandably, this tension was at its most intense as the Jews passed through Samaria from Galilee on their way to the feasts. Josephus recounts a violent incident between Galileans and Samaritans (Wars 2.12.3). While a large number of Jews were making their way through a Samaritan village on route to the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem, a Galilean was killed. In response, many people from Galilee mobilized to retaliate against the Samaritans. The leaders of Galilee appealed to Cumanus, the Roman governor, to intervene and punish the murderers, but their request was dismissed and no further action was taken. This further escalated the tensions between the Jews and Samaritans. This context explains why, according to Luke, Jesus “sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make preparations for him.” As we might expect given the background just discussed, “the people did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem.”
This account in Luke also illuminates, in an incidental and casual manner, an otherwise unexplained detail in Mark. According to Mark 3:17, Jesus gave James and John the sons of Zebedee a nickname — “sons of thunder.” This is, in fact, an unexplained allusion in Mark — itself a hallmark of verisimilitude. But Luke 9:54 gives us some insight into their personality. They ask Jesus, “Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” This background sheds light on why, plausibly, Jesus gave James and John the nickname, sons of thunder. Peter J. Williams explains, “The two reports fit well together, as one appears to record a name based on character, and the other appears to report a character fitting well with the name.” [32]
6. Unity of the Character of Mary & Martha
In Luke 10:38-42, we read of Jesus’ interaction with two sisters, Mary and Martha:
38 Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching. 40 But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.” 41 But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, 42 but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.”
In this account we see that, while Martha stressed about practical matters, Mary sat, listening attentively to Jesus’ teaching, ignoring the stresses of her active sister. In John 11, we see an entirely different narrative concerning the same two sisters, when Jesus raises their brother Lazarus from the dead. Peter J. Williams compares these two accounts, observing subtle similarities in the mannerisms and behavior of Mary and Martha between these two distinct episodes [33]:
In John we see the same two women after their brother has died. Jesus approaches their village. As soon as Martha hears, she goes to Jesus, while Mary “remained seated” at home (John 11:20). Immediately we see a coincidence in the Gospel descriptions, not of the event but of the types of responses. In both Luke and John, Mary sits while Martha acts. In both, Martha does the welcoming. After meeting Jesus, the ever-active Martha secretly sends a message to her sister that Jesus is calling her. Mary then gets up quickly, and those with her think she is going to weep at the tomb (John 11:31). Coming to Jesus, unlike her sister, “she fell at his feet” (John 11:32—recall that she was at Jesus’s feet in Luke too). Jesus sees her weeping (John 11:33), though there is no similar record that Martha weeps. After arriving at the tomb and himself weeping, Jesus commands for the stone to be moved. At this point Martha says, “Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days” (John 11:39). This extremely practical concern misses the point that Jesus is about to raise Lazarus from the dead.
What we see is this: there is no obvious reason to conclude that one author has copied the other, but the two narratives present the two characters in ways that accord with each other. This is so in the physical matters of Mary’s “sitting” and positioning herself physically at Jesus’s feet, but also in the practical concerns of Martha in both accounts. In both stories, she is also the more active. The easiest interpretation of this is that both Luke and John are describing true characters. This model accounts for a lot in a simple way. Other scenarios are possible, but they do not explain things so straightforwardly.
The subtle ways in which these characters are similar between two distinct narratives in Luke and John suggest that these accounts represent historical events involving these two real characters.
In Luke 11:42, Jesus pronounces woes against the Pharisees: “But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.” This text is paralleled in Matthew 23:23, though the texts have distinctive wording (Matthew’s version reads, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others”). Most likely, Luke is not directly using Matthew as a source, but it is possible that Luke and Matthew are utilizing a common source (which we could call Q). Nonetheless, it is striking that even in the section that is rendered word for word identical in English (“These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others”), the text in Greek is not quite identical. Matthew 23:23 reads, ταῦτα δὲ ἔδει ποιῆσαι κἀκεῖνα μὴ ἀφιέναι, whereas Luke 11:42 reads ταῦτα δὲ ἔδει ποιῆσαι κἀκεῖνα μὴ παρεῖναι. Plausibly, Luke has access to a source for this pronouncement of woes that is independent of Matthew’s source.
In any case, in this saying, Jesus exposes the Pharisees’ misplaced priorities — they would weigh out lightweight herbs with which to tithe, and yet were neglecting the far weightier matters of the law — justice and the love of God. As it turns out, Jesus was not being hyperbolic. Indeed, we read in the Jerusalem Talmud, “One who husks barley removes the husks [from the kernels] one by one, and eats [without tithing]. But if he husked [a few kernels] and placed [them] in his hand, he is required [to tithe]. One who husks parched kernels of wheat sifts [the kernels] from hand to hand, and eats [without tithing]. But if he sifted [the kernels] and placed [them] inside his shirt, he is required [to tithe],” (y. Maas. 4:3). [34] What is also interesting is that this witty word parallel (of “light” vs. “heavy”) resembles another instance, in a completely different setting, given by the gospel of John. According to John 7:21-24, in response to an accusation of breaking the Sabbath by healing a paralyzed man, “Jesus answered them, ‘I did one work, and you all marvel at it. Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man’s whole body well? Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.'” Here Jesus exposes their hypocrisy — since it is lawful for them to circumcise a boy (i.e. cut off part of a man) if his eighth day falls on a Sabbath, then all the more how permissible is it to make a man whole on the Sabbath day? Again, we see this witty word parallel. A similar episode transpires in Luke 13:15-16 as well. Having just healed a woman who has been bent over for eighteen years and unable to stand up, Jesus is charged with breaking the Sabbath. He responds, “You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger and lead it away to water it? And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?” Jesus here compares loosing the animal to loosing the woman. Lydia McGrew comments, “This is clearly the same man and the same mind. Again and again, Jesus exposes hypocrisy and misplaced priorities concerning the observation of the law, and he loves to do it using witty word parallels — untying an animal vs. untying a person, circumcising vs. making whole, light vs. heavy. But who would have invented such a thing?” The best explanation is that this is really what Jesus was like. It was really how his mind worked.” [35]
8. Jesus’ Ministry at Perea
In Luke 13:31-33, we read,
31 At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, “Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.” 32 And he said to them, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. 33 Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.
This caution appears to have been given after Jesus has already left Galilee for Jerusalem (cf. v. 22). When Luke mentions Herod Antipas, however, he repeatedly emphasizes that he was the tetrarch of Galilee (Lk 3:1, 23:5-12). If, then, Jesus has already left Galilee, what sense is there in the Pharisees’ caution, since Jesus has presumably already left Herod’s jurisdiction? According to Josephus, following the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C., his territory was divided among three of his sons — Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip (Antiquities 17.11.4) [36]:
But as for the other half, he divided it into two parts, and gave it to two other of Herod’s sons, to Philip and to Antipas, that Antipas who disputed with Archelaus for the whole kingdom. Now, to him it was that Perea and Galilee paid their tribute, which amounted annually to two hundred talents…
Perea was located east of the Jordan river, as shown in the map below.
Luke does not inform us of where geographically this warning of the Pharisees takes place. However, the other three gospels indicate that, not long before Jesus’ death, he spent time east of the Jordan river — though they don’t use the name Perea (Mk 10:1, Mt 19:1, Jn 10:40).
Lydia McGrew remarks [37],
Though Luke doesn’t locate the “warning” of the Pharisees geographically, the coincidence with the other Gospels and the external information that Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Perea makes a lot of sense. In fact, it’s a particularly lovely combination of facts that confirms Luke’s Gospel. It’s possible that Luke hadn’t even picked up on the fact that Antipas was tetrarch of Perea as well as Galilee. If he knew it, he doesn’t mention it. Nonetheless, he includes Jesus’ dialogue with the Pharisees in 13.31 because (presumably) that was what his own sources told him. Since, it turns out, Herod ruled the region east of the Jordan River where, the other Gospels tell us, Jesus spent time in the last months before his death, everything fits together!
It is also of note that Jesus’ response to the Pharisees (Lk 13:32-33) is consistent with Jesus’ characteristic sarcastic tone, or savage wit, that we see expressed elsewhere. For example, in John 10:31, in response to the Jews picking up stones to throw at him for claiming divine identity, Jesus asks them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” Moreover, Jesus, when addressing the scribes and Pharisees (who prided themselves on their knowledge of the Scriptures, Jesus says, on multiple occasions “Have you not read…?” (Mt 12:3, 5; 19:4; Mk 12:10). In Mark 14:58, Jesus sarcastically remarks to those who have come to arrest him, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me?” We see Jesus’ savage wit similarly reflected in John 5:39-43: “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. I do not receive glory from people. But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him,” (emphasis added). Jesus astutely suggests that those whom these words are addressed to would, in fact, prefer someone who was more self-promoting. This is arguably the closest resemblance to Jesus’ tone in Luke 13:32-33. Notice the parallel in Jesus’ tone, or wit, across diverse episodes and different gospels. This suggests that these episodes represent the mind of the same person.
9. The Parable of the Prodigal Son
The parable of the prodigal son begins, “There was a man who had two sons,” (Lk 15:11). Jesus then proceeds to tell a story about one of these sons who squandered his father’s wealth before eventually repenting and returning to his father. The father prepared a fattened calf to celebrate the son’s return home. According to verses 25-31,
25 “Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. 27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.’ 28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, 29 but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’ ”
One of the main morals of this parable is that sometimes it is those who are known for their sins who end up being closer to God than the apparently righteous. In Matthew 21:28-32, Jesus tells a different parable about another man who had two sons:
28 “What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. 30 And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.
Notice the parallel opening line — “A man had two sons.” Moreover, this parable makes the same moral point that is made by the parable of the prodigal son — that is, the tax collectors and prostitutes (i.e., those most notorious for their sins) end up being closer to God than those thought to be righteous. Peter J. Williams observes concerning these two parables that “we have two different stories with the same opening in two different Gospels, but both make the same point. That is naturally explained if they came from the same person.” [38]
10. “I Am Among You As the One Who Serves”
In the account of the last supper in Luke 22:27, Jesus says, “For who is the greater, one who reclined at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.” What does Jesus mean by this phrase, and to what could he be referring? When we turn over to John 13:4-5, we learn that Jesus on this same occasion gave the disciples an object lesson in servanthood: “[Jesus] laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet…” This act (not reported by Luke) casually dovetails with Jesus’ statement in Luke 22:27 (not reported by John) that, though he is the greatest among them, he nonetheless acts as their servant. One may ask, however, why Jesus washes the disciples’ feet on this particular occasion. Luke 22:24 gives us a detail not supplied by John that provides us with some relevant background: “A dispute also arose among [the disciples], as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.” Luke, then, reports the occasion that gave rise to Jesus’ object lesson in servanthood, but not the object lesson itself. John reports the object lesson but not the occasion that gave rise to it. The accounts dovetail so casually and artlessly that it supports that they are rooted in historical memory.
Internal Evidences Specific to the Resurrection Account in Luke
Having established that Luke extracted reliable information from the apostles regarding Jesus’ life and ministry, I will now turn my attention to internal lines of evidence that pertain to Luke’s resurrection account specifically.
The Women Witnesses
One relevant evidence here is the fact that Luke, like the other three gospels, reports that women were the chief discoverers of the empty tomb. Given that the testimony of women was not highly esteemed in the patriarchal society that was ancient Palestine, this fact is more probable on the hypothesis that Luke is reporting what he really believed happened than on the falsehood of that hypothesis. Josephus writes, “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex,” (Antiquities 4.8.15). The fact that the first witnesses were female was even a subject of mockery by the second century Greek critic of Christianity, Celsus (Origen, Against Celsus 2.55) [39]:
That while alive he was of no assistance to himself, but that when dead he rose again, and showed the marks of his punishment, and how his hands were pierced with nails: who beheld this? A half-frantic woman, as you state, and some other one, perhaps, of those who were engaged in the same system of delusion, who had either dreamed so, owing to a peculiar state of mind, or under the influence of a wandering imagination had formed to himself an appearance according to his own wishes, which has been the case with numberless individuals; or, which is most probable, one who desired to impress others with this portent, and by such a falsehood to furnish an occasion to impostors like himself. [emphasis added]
The fact that women are represented to be the first witnesses to the empty tomb and raised Jesus, therefore, may be taken as evidence confirmatory of the hypothesis that Luke is telling us what he really believed happened. N.T. Wright concludes, “As historians we are obliged to comment that if these stories had been made up five years later, let alone thirty, forty, or fifty years later, they would never have had Mary Magdalene in this role. To put Mary there is, from the point of view of Christian apologists wanting to explain to a skeptical audience that Jesus really did rise from the dead, like shooting themselves in the foot. But to us as historians this kind of thing is gold dust. The early Christians would never, never have made this up.” [40]
Caution, however, is warranted here, since there is a tendency among apologists to overstate the evidential significance of this fact. One can reasonably posit alternative explanations for why the gospels report the discovery of the empty tomb by women. Bart Ehrman, for example, points out that “women were particularly well represented in early Christian communities”, and it is therefore somewhat plausible that they invented the oral traditions involving the discovery of the empty tomb. [41] Furthermore, Ehrman notes, “Preparing bodies for burial was commonly the work of women, not men. And so why wouldn’t the stories tell of women who went to prepare the body? Moreover, if, in the stories, they are the ones who went to the tomb to anoint the body, naturally they would be the ones who found the tomb empty.” [42] Furthermore, women could provide legal testimony under Jewish law if no male witnesses were available. In fact, Josephus appeals to women as his only witnesses of what took place inside Masada or at the battle at Gamala (Jewish War 7.9.1 and 4.1.10), though that may likewise be taken as an indication of Josephus reporting truthfully. Another important consideration is the fact that we are told of the woman whom Jesus spoke with at the well of Samaria that “Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, ‘He told me all that I ever did,'” (Jn 4:39).
Thus, the fact that the gospels have women as the primary witnesses to the empty tomb does not prove the tomb was empty and care should be taken not to overstate the case. Nevertheless, the reports of the women being the chief discoverers of the empty tomb is antecedently more likely on the assumption that what the gospels report is based in historical fact than on the assumption the authors made it up. Thus, while the testimony of the women may not be sufficient to demonstrate the veracity of the empty tomb reports, it does offer evidence to that effect.
An important point here, often overlooked, is that the accounts in the four gospels of the women discovering the empty tomb are in fact independent. Luke 24:10 says, “Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles…” It is often suggested that John 20:1, which reports only Mary Magdalene’s discovery of the empty tomb, conflicts with Luke’s account. However, in John 20:2, we read, “So she [Mary] ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him” [emphasis added]. Mary’s word-choice, in particular the use of οὐκ οἴδαμεν (“we do not know”) indicates, quite incidentally, that there were in fact other women, and John’s report of these words reveals that he also is aware of this fact even though it is not mentioned explicitly. Thus, Luke’s and John’s account of the women discovering the empty tomb appear to be independent of each other.
Matthew and Mark also appear to be independent of Luke when it comes to the women’s discovery of the empty tomb. [43] Luke indicates in Luke 8:1-3 that some women followed Jesus from Galilee, including Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager. This detail is confirmed by an undesigned coincidence with Matthew 14:1, since it illuminates how the author of Matthew’s gospel might know what Herod had said to his servants, presumably in the privacy of his palace. The names given in Luke’s list are Mary, Joanna, and Susanna, as well as “many others,” (Lk 8:2-3). Mark, describing the women who were “looking on from a distance” at the crucifixion, lists “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome,” (Mk 14:40). These names overlap only partially with those given in Luke 8. There is no mention in Mark of Joanna or Susanna, and Luke does not mention Mary the mother of James or Salome. It does not appear that Luke added the passage in chapter 8 in order to “put” the women in place earlier in Jesus’ ministry and thus fit his narrative together with Matthew and Mark concerning the women at the cross, because the names are only partially the same. Luke would have presumably included Mary the mother of James, and Salome, and probably left out Susanna if he had fictionalized the verses in chapter 8 on the basis of Mark’s mention of the women at the cross. Luke himself mentions the women who came from Galilee at the cross and burial (23:49, 55) but doesn’t even name any of them there. Both accounts, therefore, confirm apparently independently that there was a group of women who had begun following Jesus in Galilee and who continued to do so and who helped Jesus in concrete ways (“ministering” or “providing”). In Luke 24:6-10, the angels tell the women at the empty tomb, “Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee” (v. 6). This makes it clear that these women really were personally with Jesus in Galilee and heard what He said there. When Luke names various women who brought the disciples news of the empty tomb and the message of the angel (24:10), he names Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Joanna (and says there were other women as well). Once again, he doesn’t seem to be trying to reproduce his own list from chapter 8, for Mary the mother of James was not in that list, and Susanna isn’t mentioned in 24:10. Nor is he reproducing Mark’s list of women at the cross nor Mark’s list of women who came to the tomb (Mk 16:1), since Salome isn’t included in Luke’s list, and Joanna (who is unique to Luke) is not included in Mark’s list. Luke seems to be listing women whom he really knows were present for the events on Easter morning. Evidently, he is not sure about Susanna’s presence or just does not bother to mention her, and he knows that Mary the mother of James was there on Easter morning even though she is not listed in his chapter 8. Thus, this is also an undesigned coincidence internal to Luke, a way in which fairly distant parts of Luke’s own narrative fit together in an apparently casual and non-deliberate way: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and various other women were with Jesus in Galilee and heard there Jesus’ own prediction of his crucifixion and resurrection. They subsequently went with him to Jerusalem and were present at the cross, burial, and empty tomb.
Reconcilable Variations
Another category of evidence bearing on the case for the resurrection is the phenomenon of reconcilable variations, so-named by the nineteenth century Anglican scholar Thomas Rawson Birks. [44] A reconcilable variation refers to when there exist two accounts of the same event, or at least two accounts that appear to cross over the same territory at some point, and at first blush they seem so divergent that it is almost awkward; but then, on further thought, they turn out to be reconcilable in some natural fashion after all. When two accounts appear at first so divergent that one is not sure they can be reconciled, that is significant evidence for their independence. When they turn out, upon closer inspection or upon learning more information, to be reconcilable without forcing after all, one has almost certainly independent accounts that dovetail.
Multiple instances of reconcilable variation pertain to the resurrection accounts. For example, it is popularly observed that Luke 24:36-49 reports Jesus as having appeared to “the eleven” who were all present together at the time (see vs. 33). This, so the argument goes, does not allow for Thomas’ absence from the group at the time of the appearance (as in John), nor a subsequent appearance to the disciples with Thomas present. Furthermore, John tells us that the appearance to the eleven with Thomas present occurred eight days later, whereas Luke seems to indicate that the ascension took place immediately after the appearance to the eleven. Luke 24:50-51 tell us, “Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.” One possible reply is that “the eleven” is being used as a figure of speech, much as “the twelve” is used in that way by Paul (see 1 Cor 15:5). I do not, however, find this approach to be the most convincing, since it seems to be rather ad hoc, and there is no independent evidence that Luke used the term “the eleven” in this way. It also would not explain the apparent immediacy of Jesus’ ascension following the appearance to the eleven, allowing apparently no time for a subsequent appearance to the disciples with Thomas present. In response to this objection, it may be pointed out that, at the end of Luke, there is clear haste and a lack of specificity about time. Indeed, Luke 24:29 states that the men on the road to Emmaus pressed Jesus to stay with them for dinner because it was already evening and the day was “far spent.” We do not know what that means exactly, but it hardly meant three in the afternoon. Jesus then goes in with them; dinner is prepared, however long that took, and they sit down to eat. They recognize him as he breaks bread, and he disappears. They then immediately go back to Jerusalem, a distance of 60 stadia (Lk 24:13), which looks like it was about 10-12 km – that is, about 6 to 7 miles. This walk would take well over an hour, perhaps as long as two hours. They then chat with the disciples for a while and tell their story (vs. 35). Then Jesus appears and shows himself. They give him some food (vs. 42). Only after this does Jesus begin talking to them about the Scriptures, giving them some sort of sermon about how his death was foretold in the Scriptures (vss. 45ff). How long did that take? Jesus then leads them out to Bethany, a mile or two walk (c.f. Jn 11:18). If one tries to put this all on the same evening, it really looks like it would already be dark by that time, making it difficult for them even to witness the ascension into heaven (vs. 51). So even in Luke 24 alone, it does not look like all of this happened in one day. Evidently, Luke is either running out of scroll or in a hurry at that point, and he doesn’t appear to have full knowledge yet of exactly how long Jesus was on earth. Thus, he simply leaves it non-specific and clarifies in Acts 1. As for the reference to “the eleven” in verse 33, I am inclined to think that Luke simply was not aware of Thomas’ absence during the first appearance to the disciples in Jerusalem. This is only a very minor error on Luke’s part that does not substantially undermine his reliability.
It is also popularly alleged that Matthew has Jesus appear to the disciples only in Galilee (not in Judea), and the gospel of Luke and Acts have Jesus appear to his disciples only in Judea (not in Galilee). I would argue, however, that it is entirely plausible that Jesus’ instruction to remain in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4) was said to the disciples after they had returned to the Jerusalem area from Galilee during the 40 days on which Jesus remained on the earth, perhaps shortly or even immediately prior to the ascension. By all accounts, the ascension occurred from the region of the Mount of Olives near Bethany, so evidently, they went to Galilee and then came back.
Yet a further line of evidence for Luke’s honest reporting of the apostles’ claims concerning the resurrection comes from the principle of restraint. Not one of the gospels provides any details concerning the appearance of Jesus individually to Peter or to his brother James, despite the fact that Paul mentions both in 1 Corinthians 15:5,7. Luke is certainly aware at least of the appearance individually to Peter because he alludes briefly to it in passing in Luke 24:33-34. Why, then, does he not include an account of this appearance? This can be explained if Peter and James had both made it known that they had had an encounter with the risen Lord following the resurrection, but, for whatever reason, neither had made an account of this private meeting available for publication. Indeed, “if the Gospel writers were trying truthfully to record only what they either knew directly or had reliable sources to tell them about, they would have very little to say about such meetings, exactly as we find. But if they felt free to invent dialogue and scenes in order to fill in where information was otherwise missing, why would they not have done so here? Their restraint points to the conclusion that they are truthful, reliable recorders.” [45]
Thus, from the aforementioned lines of evidence, taken cumulatively, we can be confident that not only was Luke in a position to know what was being claimed by the apostles concerning the resurrection of Jesus, but Luke accurately records what they reported. What, though, best explains the apostles’ claims to have had encounters with the risen Jesus? It is to this question that I now turn.
What Best Explains the Apostles’ Claim?
When evaluating any claim, three broad categories of explanation must be considered. Those are, (1) the claimant is deliberately deceiving; (2) the claimant is sincerely mistaken; and (3) the claimant is accurately reporting what happened. Those broad explanatory categories are mutually exhaustive (though one can envision scenarios where they are applicable in combination). The various lines of evidence adduced in the previous section of this paper may be brought to bear not only in confirming Luke as a faithful reporter of what the apostles claimed concerning the resurrection, but also in eliminating the first of those hypotheses stated above. Additional lines of evidence may, however, be adduced to further strengthen our case against the first hypothesis. It is beyond doubt that the “apostles passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct.” [46] The book of Acts itself speaks of the intense persecution endured by the early Christians, including the martyrdom of James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2), the imprisonment of Peter (Acts 12:3-5), the beating of Peter and John (Acts 5:40), and the many sufferings of the apostle Paul for the name of Christ. Since the apostles’ willingness to suffer persecution and even martyrdom is more probable given the sincerity of their belief than otherwise, this may be taken as evidence disconfirming the first hypothesis, that they were deliberately setting out to deceive. I develop this point in much greater detail in this previous article.
A further line of evidence against the first hypothesis is no known sect of Judaism was expecting the Messiah to be raised from the dead. [47] The Sadducees had no belief in the resurrection of the dead and the Pharisees believed only in a general resurrection at the end of time, but had no concept of one man rising to glory and immortality in the middle of history. There was therefore no obvious apologetic motivation for positing that Jesus had been raised from the dead. The crucifixion of Jesus was seen by many Jews, in light of Deuteronomy 21:23, as indicating Jesus’ failure to be the awaited Messiah, and Jews were hardly given to glorifying failed Messiahs. After the failed rebellion of Simon Bar Kochba against Rome (132-135 A.D.), nobody proclaimed that he had risen from the dead.
Other factors that argue against any hypothesis of conspiracy include the speed at which a conspiracy would have needed to get off the ground, as well as the number and variety of individuals who would have needed, against their own interests, to be involved in such a conspiracy. [48] This included the eleven, the apostle Paul, at least five or six women, Cleopas and his companion, James the brother of Jesus, Matthias and Barsabbas called Justus (who are both named in Acts 1:23 as fulfilling the requirements of an apostle, i.e. having been witnesses to the resurrection). Being conservative, therefore, and including only those individuals who are specifically named, there would have needed to be at least 23 individuals involved in the conspiracy. It is extremely improbable that all of those individuals had something to gain by asserting that Jesus had risen from the dead and that none of them would have reneged.
What, then, of the second hypothesis, namely, that the apostles were sincerely mistaken? I have already discussed how the multisensory nature of the claimed resurrection experiences is not something about which one might plausibly be honestly mistaken. There exists yet another line of evidence against that hypothesis. Jesus’ resurrection is said in all of the earliest sources to have taken place on the Sunday morning following His death at Passover. This is indicated in all four gospels as well as Paul, who indicates that Christ “was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:4). The evidence from the early church writings as well as the Roman writer Pliny the Younger (10.96.7), the book of Revelation (1:10), the book of Acts (20:7) and Paul (1 Corinthians 16:2) all indicate that early Christian worship took place not on the Sabbath day but on Sunday instead. This almost certainly reflects the apostolic claim that Jesus rose again on the Sunday. But why does Paul indicate that the Christ “was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (this is also indicated in Lk 24:7). The point at which Paul, I would suggest, is driving is that Christ represents the first man to be raised to glory and immortality, similar to the first fruits of the harvest that guarantees that the remainder of the harvest will come (c.f. 1 Corinthians 15:20). Indeed, the feast of first fruits was to be celebrated the day following the first Sabbath following the Passover – that is, the Sunday following Passover (Lev 23:11). Although the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed over whether the Sabbath in question was the Day of Passover itself or the Sabbath following the Passover, the Sadducees (who took the latter view) were in charge of the temple in the first century and thus that was the view that prevailed in first century Jewish practice, prior to the fall of the temple in 70 C.E. It is quite the coincidence then that the earliest sources consistently indicate that Jesus rose from the dead on the day of first fruits, given its theological import. This sort of coincidence points to design, and thus away from the hypothesis of the apostles being honestly mistaken.
Conclusion
Having argued strongly against the first two explanatory categories, this leaves as the best explanation of the evidence discussed in this paper the one the angels themselves gave the disciples in Luke 24:5-6: “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen.”
Footnotes
[1] Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus – A New Historiographical Approach (Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2010), 318-343.
[2] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (New York: Prometheus, 2004), 43-44.
[3] Luuk van de Weghe, Living Footnotes in the Gospel of Luke: Luke’s Reliance on Eyewitness Sources (Pickwick Publications, 2023), chapter 1.
[4] Peters, J. J. (2020). Luke’s Source Claims in the Context of Ancient Historiography. Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 18(1), 35-60. https://doi.org/10.1163/17455197-2019004
[5] Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 1 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012), 431.
[6] William Paley, Horae Paulinae or, the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced (In The Works of William Paley, Vol. 2 [London; Oxford; Cambridge; Liverpool: Longman and Co., 1838].
[7] Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2017).
[8] William Paley, Horae Paulinae or, the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced (In The Works of William Paley, Vol. 2 [London; Oxford; Cambridge; Liverpool: Longman and Co., 1838].
[9] William Paley, Horae Paulinae or, the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced (In The Works of William Paley, Vol. 2 [London; Oxford; Cambridge; Liverpool: Longman and Co., 1838].
[10] Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 399–400.
[11] Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 110.
[12] P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphoses, ed. Arthur Golding (Medford, MA: W. Seres, 1567).
[13] F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 311.
[14] Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 125.
[15] Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 125.
[16] Cassius Dio, Dio’s Roman History, trans. Earnest Cary, vol. 7, The Loeb Classical Library (London; New York; Cambridge, MA: The Macmillan Co.; G. P. Putnam’s Sons; Harvard University Press; William Heinemann Ltd, 1914–1927), 411.
[17] Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 538.
[18] Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 533–534.
[19] James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul: With Dissertations on the Life and Writings of St. Luke, and the Ships and Navigation of the Ancients, Fourth Edition, Revised and Corrected (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1880). See also Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 4 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2015), 3555-3660.
[20] R.W. White. “A Meteorological Appraisal of Acts 27:5-26.” The Expository Times 113, no. 12 (September 2002), 403-407.
[21] Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 331.
[22] F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Nashville, TN; Bath, England: Kingsley Books, 2018), 101.
[23] Titus M Kennedy, Unearthing the Bible: 101 Archaeological Discoveries That Bring the Bible to Life (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2020), 228–229.
[24] 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).
[25] Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 423.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid., 613.
[29] William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: Volume 1, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
[30] Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 633.
[31] William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: Volume 1, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
[32] Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 90.
[33] Ibid., 88-89.
[34] Jacob Neusner, The Jerusalem Talmud: A Translation and Commentary (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008).
[35] Lydia McGrew, Testimonies to the Truth: Why You Can Trust the Gospels (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, 2023), 210.
[36] Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 473.
[37] Lydia McGrew, Testimonies to the Truth: Why You Can Trust the Gospels (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, 2023), 30.
[38] Peter J. Williams, The Surprising Genius of Jesus: What the Gospels Reveal about the Greatest Teacher (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2023), 12.
[39] Origen, “Origen against Celsus,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Frederick Crombie, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 453.
[40] Tom Wright, “Appendix B”, in Anthony Flew, There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2007) with Roy Abraham Varghese (San Francisco: Harper One), 207.
[41] Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York: HarperOne, 2014), kindle.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Lydia McGrew, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2019), 272-282.
[44] Thomas Rawson Birks, Horae Evangelicae, or The Internal Evidence of the Gospel History (London: Seeleys, 1852). See also Lydia McGrew, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2019), 316–321.
[45] Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Ohio: DeWard Publishing Company, 2017), chap. 4, kindle.
[46] William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: Volume 1, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
[47] Tom Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, Augsburg Fortress, 2003).
[48] Lydia McGrew, “Independence, conspiracy, and the resurrection”, Extra Thoughts, August 24th, 2020. http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/08/independence-conspiracy-and-resurrection.html,
12 thoughts on “The Resurrection of Jesus: The Evidential Contribution of Luke-Acts”
Pingback: A Ressurreição de Jesus: A Contribuição Evidencial de Lucas-Atos – Cosmovisão e Fé
Pingback: Hard Evidence the Book of Acts Was Written by an Eyewitness? A Reply to Bart Ehrman - Jonathan McLatchie | Writer, Speaker, Scholar
Pingback: Did Jesus Exist? A Critical Appraisal of Richard Carrier's Interpretation of the Pauline Corpus - Jonathan McLatchie | Writer, Speaker, Scholar
Pingback: Should Christians Use the Argument from Martyrdom? A Reply to Bart Ehrman - Jonathan McLatchie | Writer, Speaker, Scholar
Pingback: The Evidential Value of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 to the Case for the Resurrection - Jonathan McLatchie | Writer, Speaker, Scholar
Pingback: The Evidential Value of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 to the Case for the Resurrection - Jonathan McLatchie | Writer, Speaker, Scholar
Pingback: O Valor da Evidência de 1 Coríntios 15:3-8 Para o Caso da Ressurreição – Cosmovisão e Fé
Pingback: On Matthew Hartke's Five Reasons to Doubt the Resurrection - Jonathan McLatchie | Writer, Speaker, Scholar
Pingback: What Are Students Learning At Yale? A Review of Dale Martin's Introductory Lecture on the New Testament - Jonathan McLatchie | Writer, Speaker, Scholar
Pingback: Extrabiblical Evidence for the Veracity of the Gospel History - Jonathan McLatchie | Writer, Speaker, Scholar
Pingback: Does Isaiah 9:6 Affirm the Deity of Israel's Messiah? - Jonathan McLatchie | Writer, Speaker, Scholar
Pingback: Defending Jesus’ Resurrection (LIVE with Dr. Jonathan McLatchie, 8:00pm ET) [Video] – Mary Patriot News