is the acts of the apostles historically reliable?

24 Pages·1999·0.1 MB·English

by  George Meisinger

IS THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
HISTORICALLY RELIABLE?
Part 2 of 2
by
Brian Janeway
Part one of this article dealt primarily with the history of the criti-
cism of the Book of Acts. In it I traced the birth of radical skepticism
developed out of Enlightenment philosophy and brought to maturity by
the likes of Ferdin and Baur among others. However, a "weighty
counter-blow" was struck by new archaeological discoveries, espe-
cially by Sir William Ramsay which affirmed the historicity of Acts.
Next the speeches in Acts and the ancient practice of historiography
were examined. Luke was found to be a faithful recorder of the essence
of what was actually said in the best tradition of historians like Thucy-
dides and Lucian.
The second and final half of this article will analyze three more
aspects of Luke's work: the "we" passages, archaeological and histori-
cal data, and alleged difficulties in the text. These will be
consummated in a verdict on whether the Book of Acts is indeed wor-
thy of our trust.
"We" Passages
Style Criticism
The so-called "we" passages in Acts present a unique and interest-
ing opportunity to probe Luke's reliability. Analyses of these accounts
are often bound up with questions of authorial identity. Whether the
author actually accompanied Paul on these voyages or not, Cadbury
called an "insoluble riddle."1 Upon closer examination, however, the
"riddle" does not appear insoluble.
The "we" passages all appear in the last chapters of Acts. The ac-
counts are linked with "theys," giving the appearance that the author
moved in and out of the story as a participant. The passages being
considered are:

1 Cadbury, Making, 357.
48 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #2 (April-June 1999)
16:10-17 Journey from Troas to Philippi
20:5-16 Journey from Philippi to Miletus
21:1-18 Journey from Miletus to Jerusalem
27:1-28:16 Journey from Caesarea to Rome
Except for short overland segments, the majority of the passages
concern sea voyages. The immediately obvious and simplest explana-
tion for these accounts is that the writer was a participant whenever he
uses the term "we."2 However, nothing is taken prima facie in the field
of biblical criticism.
There are three different views on these passages. The first holds
that the author was an eyewitness; the second that the author was not
present but used accounts from sources that were; and, the third is that
the author used them as a literary device to portray verisimilitude. For
the purposes of establishing historical trustworthiness, the distinction
between the first two is irrelevant. Luke could well have used accurate
accounts borrowed from others. Therefore, we are left with two possi-
bilities. Either the accounts represent eyewitness information, or they
were a product of literary convention.
Again, the work of Dibelius is credited with bringing a new per-
spective to the field. His hypothesis has been widely accepted by later
scholars. He proposed that the author had access to a travel diary or
"itinerary" that he used as a framework. Into the framework he in-
serted "edifying" tales at appropriate junctures. He supports this by
noting that places are mentioned at which nothing really occurs; for
example, Attalia (14:2-5), Samothrace and Neapolis (16:11), and Am-
phipolis (17:1).3 However, a stronger counter argument could be made
that the numerous incidental details are best explained by eyewitness
participation. What better reason for their inclusion?

2 Ibid., 359. Cadbury, by applying the preface of Luke's gospel to Acts (as
many critics do) shows that Luke quite likely was not an eyewitness to all "the
things fulfilled among us" but drew on sources for the earlier chapters while
clearly implying involvement in the later ones.
3 Conzelmann, Acts, xxxix.
Acts of the Apostles 49
Paul’s Shipwreck Voyage
The case of Paul's shipwreck journey (Acts 27-28) is an excellent
one for a closer analysis. Ludemann in his chapter-by-chapter redac-
tion study asserts that the use of technical nautical expressions should
not mislead one into believing the account to be real. Deriving from
Dibelius the itinerary theory, he notes that Paul is only mentioned in
four passages during the sequence from Myra to Malta. Hence, Paul
could easily be "detached from the action without difficulty."4
Ludemann continues in his effort to separate redactions from tradi-
tions from historical material. Not surprisingly, after filtering out the
former two, he is left with precious little that one can consider histori-
cal. The shipwreck he attributes to parallels in ancient literature that
mingle the first person with the third person such as Odysseus. How-
ever, the result is a "literary entity" in which Luke added Paul to the
passages noted. In an astoundingly curt dismissal, he concludes "there
should no longer be any dispute here."5
Unfortunately, one cannot so easily dispense with the accounts.
Gilchrist lists several reasons for supporting his contention that Luke
drew on personal recollections.
• The realism of the passages and their extensive, even unneces-
sary detail explainable only by personal memory.
• The "unobtrusive use of `we' and its introduction without ex-
planation."
• The author's failure to use "we" throughout the narrative when
he could have made extensive use of it.
• The apparent knowledge of the emergency measures taken at
sea.6
In addition, he makes an astute observation concerning the overall
natural construction of the passages. He counts nearly one hundred
uses of "we" in which the author has no problem alternating with

4 Ludemann, Early, 257.
5 Ibid., 259.
6 J. M. Gilchrist, "The Historicity of Paul's Shipwreck," Journal for the Study
of the New Testament 61 (1996):34.
50 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #2 (April-June 1999)
"theys" and other third person pronouns. The impression is of a seam-
less series of transitions that would require a "particularly well-
disciplined imagination" to execute. The most satisfactory conclusion
is that he simply remembered his own experiences.7
In the 1840’s, a layman named James Smith did a remarkable
study on Paul's last voyage. He was an amateur yachtsman of thirty
years experience who traveled throughout the eastern Mediterranean
where Paul's voyage took place. His findings are still referenced today.
In it he wrote of Luke:
His style . . . though accurate, is unprofessional. No
sailor would have written in a style so little like that of
a sailor; no man not a sailor could have written a nar-
rative of a sea voyage so consistent in all its parts,
unless from actual observation. This peculiarity of
style is to me, in itself, a demonstration that the narra-
tive of the voyage is an account of real events, written
by an eyewitness. The geographical details must have
been taken from actual observation, for the geographi-
cal knowledge of the age was not such as to enable a
writer to be so minutely accurate in any other way.8
What were some of these peculiarities and geographical details?
Hemer compiled an extensive, but not exhaustive, list of these features.
Acts 27:6 Myra was a principal port for the Alexandrian corn ships
and the exact place that the centurion would have found a Roman
ship.9
Acts 27:7 The passage around the south of Crete would appear to be
an unlikely one but due to the prevailing northwest wind it was
forced upon the ship. In fact, this was the normal direction for ves-
sels to take.10

7 Ibid., 35.
8 James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul (London, 1866), xxx.
9 Hemer, Setting, 134.
10 Ibid.
Acts of the Apostles 51
Acts 27:8 The obscure locations of ‘Fair Havens’ and Lasea the author
accurately attests and they are unlikely to be known by someone
not on the voyage.11
Acts 27:16 The island of Cauda is precisely placed and correctly
named. It is also realistically where a ship would be driven helpless
by a northeast wind from beyond the refuge of Cape Matala.12
Acts 27:27 Calculations made by Smith to estimate the time for a ship
to drift from Cauda to Malta were confirmed by local sailors at
close to 14 days.13
Acts 27:27 The expanse of sea named Adria, now known as the Adri-
atic, Josephus accurately corroborates.14
Acts 28:7 The title "leading man of the island" in Malta has been con-
firmed by inscriptions.15
Acts 28:15 Two waypoints on the Appian Way; Market of Appius and
Three Inns, the author accurately locates.16
The precision and detail of these accounts is formidable and argue
strongly against an artificial creation. Many scholars have taken note
of the richness of this account.17 Contrasted to the earlier parts of Acts,
the "we" passages are superior in detail. It would appear reasonable
that where Luke was a participant, the graphic descriptions would re-
flect that fact and where he used sources, either oral or written, the
same texture would be absent.
On the other hand, it is generally accepted that the "we" passages
do not differ from the sections in which they are embedded in either

11 Ibid., 136.
12 Ibid., 142, 331.
13 Smith, Voyage, 122-26.
14 Hemer, Setting, 146f.
15 Ibid., 153.
16 Ibid., 156.
17 For example, Hanson, Acts, 22, Gilchrist, Historicity, 37, Dibelius, Studies,
78, Alfred Wikenhauser, New Testament Introduction (New York: Herder and
Herder, 1958), 328.
52 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #2 (April-June 1999)
style or vocabulary or subject matter. This consistency of style demon-
strates that the author was skillful in his incorporation of sources and
eyewitness accounts into a uniform whole. The uniformity in language
and topics bear the imprint of a single author.
The "insoluble riddle" we began with turns out to be not insoluble
after all. The premises of the style, literary, and redaction critics are
essentially subjective and highly speculative. When confronted with
the aggregate of geographic, topographic, and epigraphic evidence, the
literary convention theory is unsustainable. In this light the historical
trustworthiness of the "we" accounts, in the absence of concrete evi-
dence to the contrary, one can confidently assert.
Archaeology/History
Rulers in Acts
The importance of archaeological and historical research one can-
not effectively oppose. Many scholars since World War I, however,
have either minimized or ignored altogether the contributions from
these fields. Hemer believes the debate was prematurely closed at that
point, whereas Gasque attributes the absence to an ideological bias.
Without any doubt, the large body of accumulated data has been up-
staged by the preoccupation with Luke's theology. Such will not be the
case in this study.
Many rulers and prominent persons Luke mentions in Acts. The
most important of these for establishing a chronology is Lucius Junius
Gallio. An inscription containing his name was found in Delphi,
Greece, on several pieces of broken stone. In it the emperor Claudius
(A.D. 41-54) writes to that city of a report received by Gallio, "my
friend and proconsul of Achaia." Based on the tribunal year of
Claudius, which is also mentioned, the inscription dates at A.D. 52.18
This is the Gallio that Paul appeared before (Acts 18:12) after having
been in Corinth for eighteen months. Finegan uses this as a fixed date

18 F. J. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake (ed.) The Beginnings of Christianity,
Vol. V: The Acts of the Apostles (London: MacMillan and Co., 1933) 461.3.
Acts of the Apostles 53
from which he reckons both forward and backward based on references
in Acts and the Epistles.19
Peter and John were imprisoned in Jerusalem for preaching and the
authorities brought them before "Annas the high priest . . . and
Caiaphas" (4:6). Caiaphas was deposed in A.D. 36.20
The high priest Ananias commanded his henchmen to strike Paul
on the mouth for speaking out of turn (Acts 23:2). His priesthood Jo-
sephus records and Paul's trial before him can be dated to A.D. 57.21
Gamaliel is another priest (5:34) who is known as the grandson of
Hillel, active under Herod the Great. His precise dates cannot be de-
termined but he is associated with either Herod Agrippa I or II.22
On the island of Cyprus, Paul encountered the Proconsul Sergius
Paulus (13:7). An inscription found on that island in 1889 contains a
Proconsul Paulus, but the identification with the Paulus of Acts is un-
certain due to difficulties with its dating. Another possible reference to
the Paulus of Acts appears on an inscription in Ephesus. His name is
given as Sergius and he was Proconsul of Asia at a date that could
identify him as the proper ruler if he went to Cyprus shortly thereaf-
ter.23
The emperor Claudius (A.D. 41-54) is well known and his edict
expelling the Jews from Rome contains an interesting intersection of
several lines of data. There is some disagreement over the nature of
this expulsion, but McRay attributes its mention by Suetonius as dating
the event to A.D. 49.24 Paul's visit to Corinth and his meeting with
Aquila and Priscilla "having recently come from Italy" (18:2) make
this date plausible. Additionally, Aquila is a common Roman name

19 Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Princeton: Princeton Uni-
versity Press, 1964), 319.
20 Hemer, Setting, 253.
21 Ibid., 170-71.
22 Ibid., 162.
23 Foakes-Jackson, Beginnings, 455-58.
24 McRay, Archaeology, 226.
54 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #2 (April-June 1999)
that is attested in contemporary Pontus from which the couple origi-
nated.25
The passages from Acts 23-25 name several rulers and their wives
before whom Paul was put on trial. Hanson notes a "very remarkable
piece of synchronization on the part of the author" taking place. Paul
encountered the high priest Ananias shortly before appearing before
the procurator Felix. Felix was married to Drusilla. After some inter-
val of time, Festus succeeded him, shortly after arriving in Palestine.
Festus gave a hearing to Paul before Agrippa II, whose sister Bernice
was living with him at the time. It would have taken a considerable
amount of research for a later historian to piece together such a quilt-
work of persons and events.26
Two other aspects of Paul's hearings before Felix and Festus de-
serve attention. First, the charges brought against Paul by the attorney
for the Jews, named Tertullus, read "this man is a real pest and a fellow
who stirs up a plague and disturbances for the Jews throughout the
world" (24:5). Roman legal expert Sherwin-White noted the similarity
to a famous letter of Claudius' sent to the people of Alexandria in
which he objects to certain Jews "stirring up a universal plague
throughout the world."27 The contemporary usage is unmistakable.
The Jews, in attempting to construe Paul's religious dispute with them
into a legal threat to Rome, borrow language used by the emperor him-
self. Since the Roman procurators cared little of religious squabbles
among the Jews, the political case was an important one to be made.28
The second item of note concerns Felix's question to Paul. In Acts
23:34-35, he asks from what province he was and upon learning Paul
was from Cilicia decided to hear the case after your accusers arrive
also. This is just the opposite reaction from what one expects from
Felix. The key to understanding it lies in the status of Cilicia. During
that early period, Cilicia was a dependency of the Legate of Syria.

25 Hemer, Setting, 232-3.
26 Hansan, Acts, 8.
27 A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 51.
28 Ibid.
Acts of the Apostles 55
By the Flavian period (A.D. 69-96), this was no longer the case
and Cilicia became a separate province with an imperial legate of its
own. Instead of sending Paul back to Cilicia, Felix, and then Festus,
made the logical decision to hear the case. The Legate of Syria was
not to be bothered by a minor case emanating from an outlying area.
This status may have changed in the early years of Nero (A.D. 54-
68).29 So, the account of the trial in Caesarea betrays an intimacy with
procedures and geographical distinctions that were particular to a nar-
row period of time.
The other charge brought against Paul was of bringing Greeks into
the Temple and thereby defiling it (21:27-29). This was a very serious
matter for the Jews. The Temple contained an outer court for the Gen-
tiles, but they could proceed no closer to the sanctuary. The penalty
for that offense was death. An inscription found in 1870 attests to the
fact: "Let no one of the Gentiles enter inside the barrier around the
sanctuary and the porch; and if he transgresses he shall himself bear the
blame for his ensuing death." A fragmentary inscription of a similar
type was also found near the Lion's or St. Stephen's Gate in 1935.30
Paul’s Citizenship
There is also the matter of Paul's Roman citizenship. He cunningly
uses it to his advantage when circumstances require it. Paul's appeal to
Caesar (25:11) is an instructive lesson in the privileges of that citizen-
ship. In the case of the early period mentioned above, the accused was
either not tried or at most a preliminary investigation was made before
leaving the issue for the emperor. To acquit Paul despite the appeal
would have offended both the emperor and the province. "No sensible
man with hopes of promotion would dream of short-circuiting the ap-
peal to Caesar unless he had specific authority to do so." Therefore,
Festus was very glad, politically, to rid himself of Paul.31
The status of Roman citizenship was not for long to remain exclu-
sive. When Paul proudly declares himself a holder of the franchise, it
was natural, especially in the east, to attach great significance to it; a

29 Ibid., 55-56.
30 Baez-Camargo, Archaeological, 246.
31 Sherwin-White, Roman, 65.
56 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #2 (April-June 1999)
sort of "honorary degree."32 In Acts one is either a Roman or a provin-
cial.
The expansion of citizenship was a topic of great debate in Rome
during the reign of Claudius. There was opposition to an overly rapid
pace of this extension granted to the provinces. In the decades fol-
lowing Claudius, the pace "flooded fast and high," though not as much
in the east as in the west. In references to citizenship, Acts is correct
both in its many details and at the general level.33
Haenchen contended that Luke had to show the favor of the Roman
authorities to the gospel by writing in the dramatic trial scenes. A
"disquisition on legal technicalities would have meant nothing to his
readers.”34 The evidence from historical study of early Roman legal
history suggests quite another conclusion.
Titles
In Ephesus
Luke's use of titles has often been cited as demonstration of his
accuracy and familiarity with local conditions. In Ephesus, Paul be-
friended political figures known as "Asiarchs." Strabo, among other
ancient authors, speaks of these figures. They were chosen from
among the wealthiest and most aristocratic in the province. They were
expected to finance public games and festivals, usually serving one-
year terms. Inscriptions attesting "Asiarchs" have been found in over
forty cities in Asia.35

32 Ibid., 178.
33 Ibid., 173.
34 Haenchen, Acts, 106.
35 McRay, Archaeology, 255.