The Fine-Grained Historicity of Acts – Part 1
Last year, I published a lengthy essay titled “The Book of Acts is High-Resolution Reportage,” in which I documented and discussed no less than forty undesigned coincidences between Acts and the first four epistles found in our New Testament – i.e., Romans, the Corinthian letters, and Galatians. Cumulatively, this class of evidence supports the historicity of Acts down to the granular detail. In this article, I will strengthen this case still further by adducing an additional set of undesigned coincidences drawn between Acts and the remaining Pauline epistles.
Here, [in this 3-part series] I lay out a total of twenty-two examples of interlocking correspondences between Acts and Paul’s epistles. There is one overlap (#9 below) with those covered in my earlier article, since the epistle to the Philippians was of relevance to a coincidence described in my earlier essay. Moreover, #8 and #12 are not independent of one another. Thus, the total number of examples adduced in this article that are both unique and independent is twenty. This brings the total number of undesigned coincidences between Acts and the Pauline corpus to approximately sixty. I am indebted to William Paley for all of the examples adduced in this article.[1]
Independence of Acts and the Epistles
As in my previous article, I will begin by arguing that the author of Acts and the epistles of Paul are independent of one another – that is to say, the author of Acts was not using Paul’s letters as a source, nor vice versa. Since 2 Thessalonians, Philemon and Titus are the only Pauline epistles that do not [yet appear to] contain any undesigned coincidences with Acts, I will not include either of those letters in this discussion.
Ephesians & Colossians
A strong case can be marshalled that the book of Acts is not dependent on the epistles of Ephesians and Colossians, nor vice versa. First, both epistles present Paul as an established prisoner (Eph 3:1; 4:1; 6:20; Col 4:3,10,18). The account in Acts concludes with Paul being placed under house arrest (Acts 28). The perspective from inside that imprisonment is never developed in Acts, though it is an emphasis in these epistles. Moreover, the letter to the Colossians mentions Tychicus (Col. 4:7–8), Onesimus (Col. 4:9), Aristarchus (Col. 4:10), Mark (Col. 4:10), Jesus called Justus (Col. 4:11), Epaphras (Col. 4:12–13), Luke (Col. 4:14), and Demas (Col. 4:14). Acts references several of these individuals but never names Onesimus, despite his significance in the letters to the Colossians and Philemon. If Acts were factually dependent on these epistles, the omission of the story around Onesimus is surprising. Furthermore, though Acts references Aristarchus as one of those who travelled with him to Rome (Acts 27:2), the other five companions mentioned in Colossians (besides Luke, included by the “we” pronouns) are not stated by Acts to have been present with Paul in Rome.
A central figure in the epistle to the Colossians is Epaphras, to whom Paul attributes the founding and discipling of the Colossian church (Col 1:7: 4:12). This individual is never mentioned in Acts, even though Acts spends significant time on Paul’s two-year ministry in Ephesus, during which the city of Colossae was probably evangelized, since Luke stresses that “all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 19:10). Various indicators throughout the Colossian epistle suggest that Paul had not visited Colossae (Col 1:4,7-8; 2:1), which makes the evangelism of the Colossians during Paul’s ministry in Ephesus likely. Epaphras himself was most likely converted during this time. He is identified as “one of you” (Col 4:12), indicating that he was from Colossae. Moreover, he is said to have “worked hard for you and for those in Laodicea and in Hierapolis,” (Col 4:13), a reference to the three neighboring cities of the Lycus Valley. If Luke had the epistle before him, Paul’s ministry in Ephesus is a very natural place to incorporate Epaphras, but Luke does not mention his name at all.
It may also be observed that the book of Acts never even mentions the Colossian church, but rather focuses on Ephesus as the strategic center from which the gospel spread across Asia Minor – a subject to which Luke devotes three chapters (Acts 18-20). Colossians is one particular instance of a city in Asia Minor that was reached with the gospel during this time, apparently by Epaphras. The two accounts fit together, therefore, quite naturally. In addition to Colossae, moreover, the epistle assumes an established network of believers across the cities of Hierapolis and Laodicea (Col 2:1; 4-13-16). Yet, neither of those two additional cities are mentioned either.
The epistle to the Colossians, moreover, suggests that John Mark has been fully reconciled with Paul (Col 4:10). Acts reports the earlier falling out between Paul and Barnabas over John Mark’s withdrawal from them in Pamphylia (Acts 15:37-41; cf. Acts 13:13) but does not mention a later reconciliation. Luke also does not report John Mark’s familial relationship with Barnabas (Col 4:10), which illuminates Barnabas’ desire for John Mark to accompany him and Paul on their second missionary journey, despite his earlier defection.
There is also a strong case for independence between Acts and Ephesians. For one thing, Acts 20 reports Paul’s farewell speech to the elders of Ephesus. If Luke had the epistle to the Ephesians before him, one might expect to see literary dependence. However, the epistle and the report of the speech in Acts 20 scarcely overlap. In his farewell address to the Ephesian elders, Paul warns that fierce wolves will enter the flock after his departure (Acts 20:29–30), recalls serving the Lord with many tears (Acts 20:19, 31), reminds them of his manual labor to support himself and his companions while in Ephesus (Acts 20:34–35; cf. Acts 18:3), and concludes by quoting Jesus’ saying, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35), a saying not preserved in any of the four canonical Gospels. Conversely, the themes emphasized in Ephesians include cosmic reconciliation (Eph. 1:9–10; 2:11–22), union with Christ (Eph. 1:3–14; 2:4–10), unity between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:11–22; 3:6), and spiritual warfare (Eph. 6:10–18).
Tychicus is mentioned in both Ephesians and Colossians and stated to be the carrier of both of these letters (Eph 6:21; Col 4:7). He is referred to only once in Acts (20:4), and very briefly as one of those who accompanied Paul when he left Corinth. Neither Acts nor the epistles give us any further information about who he is. The fact that Tychicus is with Paul during his journey from Corinth to Jerusalem also fits with the indication in Ephesians and Colossians that Tychicus was present with Paul during his imprisonment in Rome.
Philippians
There are also multiple arguments confirming the independence of Acts and Philippians. Luke’s account concludes with Paul’s two-year house arrest in Rome (Acts 28:30-31). The epistle also presupposes that Paul is a prisoner (Phil 1:7,13-17), but highlights entirely different features that are not emphasized at all in Acts, including that “it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ” (Phil 1:13), that “most of the brothers, having become confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, are much more bold to speak the word without fear,” (Phil 1:14), that rivals were taking advantage of his imprisonment for their own gain (Phil 1:15-18), and that the community of the believers from whom he sends greetings includes “those of Caesar’s household,” (Phil 4:22). On the other hand, Acts emphasizes certain details that are not mentioned at all by the epistle, including Paul’s appeal to Caesar (Acts 25:11) and his shipwreck while a prisoner bound for Rome (Acts 27).
The epistle expresses Paul’s gratitude to the Philippians for their financial support of his ministry – “Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again.” (Phil 1:16). Yet, Acts does not mention the Philippians supplying financial aid.
Philippians 2:22 also indicates that Timothy is someone known intimately by the Philippian Christians (“you know Timothy’s proven worth…”), whereas Acts does not mention Timothy in the context of Paul’s ministry in Philippi at all.
Epaphroditus is mentioned as being a significant individual in the epistle (Phil 2:25-30; 4:18). However, he is never mentioned throughout Acts.
Philippians also alludes to Euodia and Syntyche, and Clement (Phil 4:2-3), none of whom are mentioned in Acts. Instead, Acts 16:14-15 spotlights Lydia of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who is never mentioned in the epistle.
1 Thessalonians
Multiple lines of evidence support the independence of Acts and 1 Thessalonians. For example, it may be observed that 1 Thessalonians 1:9 emphasizes the conversion of pagans in Thessalonica: “…you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God…” The book of Acts, on the other hand, emphasizes the conversion of Jews and god-fearing gentiles (Acts 17:4). These are, of course, not mutually exclusive. There are even indications that this letter is addressed to a mixed audience. Indeed, the epistle contains allusions to ideas that make little sense to gentiles lacking familiarity with Jewish eschatological thought (1 Thess 4:14-17). Paul also distinguishes believers from gentiles, whose ways they should not copy (1 Thess 4:4-5). Nonetheless, if the author of Acts were using 1 Thessalonians as a source, one would expect him to lay more emphasis on the conversion of pagans.
Furthermore, 1 Thessalonians 3:1-2 states,
Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone, 2 and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s coworker in the gospel of Christ, to establish and exhort you in your faith, 3 that no one be moved by these afflictions. For you yourselves know that we are destined for this. 4 For when we were with you, we kept telling you beforehand that we were to suffer affliction, just as it has come to pass, and just as you know. 5 For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent to learn about your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and our labor would be in vain.
Luke never explicitly mentions Timothy being sent from Athens back to Thessalonica, which creates a narrative gap in the account, particularly since Paul, upon having to leave Berea, had given instructions to Silas and Timothy to rejoin him as soon as possible (Acts 17:15), and indeed verse 16 indicates that Paul was waiting for them in Athens. But the next we read of Silas and Timothy is when they catch up with Paul in Corinth in Acts 18, and their arrival is from Macedonia. If Luke were using 1 Thessalonians as a source, one would expect him to mention Timothy having been sent back from Athens to Macedonia. His failure to do so introduces unnecessary confusion. 1 Thessalonians also stresses that Paul was relieved when Timothy brought an encouraging report back from Thessalonica (3:6-13), but neither Paul’s concern for the Thessalonians’ wellbeing, nor Timothy’s encouraging report, is mentioned by Acts.
Silas and Timothy are mentioned in the greeting of the letter (1 Thess 1:1), indicating their presence in Corinth with Paul at the time of his writing the letter. This implies that the church in Thessalonica were familiar with Silas and Timothy, and we might infer Timothy’s presence alongside Paul when Paul visited this city. However, Acts does not explicitly mention their presence during Paul’s time in Thessalonica. They are only mentioned off-handedly in Acts 17:14-15 when Paul leaves them in Berea, instructing them to catch up with him as soon as possible. This implies that they were in fact present with Paul in Thessalonica as well. Nonetheless, if Luke had the epistle before him, he might be expected to mention Silas and Timothy in relation to Paul’s time in Thessalonica. Silas’ name is also given Σιλουανὸς in the letter’s introduction, as it is throughout Paul’s letters. If the author of Acts was dependent on the epistles, it is surprising he uses a different form of the name, calling him instead Σιλᾶς.
There are also indications in the letter that suggest that Paul had a more extended ministry in Thessalonica than is suggested by a face-value reading of Acts (which says he ministered in the synagogues on three Sabbath days). Paul states that he and his associates “worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God.” He also suggests that he developed close pastoral relationships: “For you know how, like a father with his children, we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory,” (1 Thess 2:11-12). Paul also implies that the Thessalonians became imitators of other churches (1 Thess 2:14) and had become well known throughout Macedonia and Achaia (1 Thess 1:8). An impression is created by these references that Paul’s relationship with the church in Thessalonica was significantly deeper than what we might expect from a cursory reading of Acts 17.
While Luke says that Paul reasoned in the synagogue for three Sabbaths (Acts 17:2), he does not explicitly say that Paul left following three weeks. These three Sabbath appearances in the synagogue are simply recorded, and then Luke moves on to the riot narrative. Nonetheless, if Luke had the epistle before him, it is surprising that he gives the first impression of a short period of time in Thessalonica, when the contrary is suggested by the letter.
The Pastoral Epistles
The difficulty of integrating the pastoral epistles into the chronology given in Acts is well known. Nonetheless, even though we cannot construct a journey precisely, we can produce a consistent picture. Paul went back from Rome after his first imprisonment to Greece and Asia Minor. He was then re-arrested, and 2 Timothy was written from this second imprisonment. It should be noted that this contrasts starkly with his stated intention, according to Romans, to visit Spain after having been in Rome (Rom 15:24,28). At that time, he was hoping to come to Rome as a free man and continue his missionary journeys westward from Rome. The prison epistles themselves reveal that he changed this plan and travelled east rather than west following his first imprisonment to visit the churches there and strengthen them. We can infer from 2 Timothy that he was re-arrested in the course of those travels.
If the Pastoral epistles were forgeries, the impersonator would be far more likely either to make Paul write from Spain (if he were going to set epistles after Paul’s first imprisonment) or, far more likely in my judgment, to set a forged epistle at some recognizable point within the travels in Acts. The fact that the pastoral epistles fit nowhere in Acts has often been used to argue against their authenticity. However, it is an argument in precisely the opposite direction. In real life, people change their plans, and we can reconstruct from the prison epistles and pastorals how Paul revised his plans and carried them out between the two imprisonments. Thus, rather than being an argument against the authenticity of the Pastoral epistles, I would lay it out as evidence confirming their Pauline authorship.
If, on the other hand, the author of Acts had the Pastoral epistles before him, it is surprising that he does not fill out some of the details we may derive from those letters concerning what happened to Paul after his imprisonment in Rome. Acts shows no knowledge whatsoever of the post-imprisonment travels and situations described in the Pastorals, such as Paul’s leaving Titus in Crete (Titus 1:5), Timothy in Ephesus while heading to Macedonia (1 Tim 1:3), or the personal details in 2 Timothy concerning Paul’s final circumstances, associates, cloak, books, and parchments.
Though there are no undesigned coincidences connecting Acts to the letter to Titus, it may nonetheless be observed that Titus is never alluded to in Acts. There are also various other individuals mentioned in the Pastorals but never in Acts, including Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim 1:20), Phygelus (2 Tim 1:15); Hermogenes (2 Tim 1:15), Onesiphorus (2 Tim 1:16-18; 4:19); Philetus (2 Tim 2:17); and Demas (2 Tim 4:10). Acts also does not name the mother and grandmother of Timothy, which is given in Acts as Eunice and Lois respectively (2 Tim 1:5).
Taken together, these points suggest that Acts is not dependent on the Pastorals, nor vice versa. For a more thorough treatment of the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral epistles, I refer readers to my essay on this subject.
The Undesigned Coincidences in Ephesians & Colossians
- An Ambassador in a Chain
In Ephesians 6:18-20, Paul requests that the Ephesians make prayerful intercession on his behalf: “To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.” Though the ESV translation uses the phrase “an ambassador in chains,” the Greek term is in fact ἁλύσει (the dative case of ἅλυσις). Note that this word, in the original Greek, is in the singular form. Acts 28:16-20 describes Paul’s imprisonment as follows:
16 And when we came into Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier who guarded him. 17 After three days he called together the local leaders of the Jews, and when they had gathered, he said to them, “Brothers, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. 18 When they had examined me, they wished to set me at liberty, because there was no reason for the death penalty in my case. 19 But because the Jews objected, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar—though I had no charge to bring against my nation. 20 For this reason, therefore, I have asked to see you and speak with you, since it is because of the hope of Israel that I am wearing this chain.”
This text uses the same word for chain found in Ephesians — i.e., ἅλυσιν (the accusative form of ἅλυσις), again in the singular form. Thus, Paul describes his imprisonment in a manner that is similar to how it is described by Ephesians. There is, in fact, more than one way of referring to being a prisoner, some of which are used elsewhere in the epistles and also elsewhere in Acts. This particular word for “chain” is employed only twice in the Pauline epistles. In Acts 26:28-29, the following dialogue takes place between Paul and Agrippa:
28 And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” 29 And Paul said, “Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains.”
Here, Paul uses a plural word to refer to his chains (i.e., δεσμῶν). If Luke were fictitiously creating the speech by Paul in Acts 28 on the basis of Ephesians, it is surprising that he chose to use a different word in this other speech. Moreover, as discussed further below, there are other words, besides this, used for Paul’s bond in his epistles, and those do not necessitate the singular usage. It is an undesigned coincidence that, though Paul uses the singular word ἅλυσις only twice in his epistles, this very same word is used in Acts 28:20. Moreover, though the plural use of the term could refer to singular as well as multiple chains (see, for instance, Col 4:18, Phil 1:7, 1:13-16; and Philem 10 for examples of the plural usage to describe Paul’s bondage in Rome; Paul also uses a generic term, δέδεμαι, “have been bound” in Col 4:3). However, the reverse is not true — the singular form could not be used to describe plural chains. As Paley explains, “Δεσμος the noun, and δεσμαι the verb, being general terms, were applicable to this in common with any other species of personal coercion; but ἁλυσις, in the singular number, to none but this.” [2]
As it turns out, according to Roman practice, this method involved being bound by a single chain to a soldier. For example, in Acts 12:6-7, Peter is bound to two soldiers by two chains. Moreover, Josephus writes of the imprisonment of Herod Agrippa by Tiberius. When a man observed Agrippa bound and wanted to talk with him, “he asked leave of the soldier to whom he was bound, to let him come near to him, to speak with him,” (Antiquities 18.6.7). Upon his release by Caius Caesar Agrippa, he was given a gold chain, which was equivalent in weight to the iron chain by which his hands had been bound (Antiquities 19.6.1). The word in the Greek is again the singular form, ἅλυσιν.
Acts 28:16 indicates that “Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier who guarded him.” Taken together with Paul’s allusion to “this chain” when addressing the Jewish leaders in verse 20, in addition to the historical background, Luke implies that Paul was bound by a chain to a soldier. This dovetails with Paul’s passing reference in Ephesians 6:20 to himself as “an ambassador in a chain.” Lydia McGrew notes that “There is no reason why a fictionalizing, later author of Acts should pick up on the isolated reference to ‘an ambassador in a chain’ and invent both a soldier who kept Paul and Paul’s somewhat dramatic reference to ‘this chain’ in talking with the Jewish leaders in Acts 28.” [3]
- Mark’s Relationship with Barnabas
In Acts 15:37-40, Paul and Barnabas have a sharp falling out over John Mark, who has previously withdrawn from them in Pamphylia (cf. Acts 13:13). Paul does not want John Mark to join them for the second missionary journey. Barnabas, however, appears adamant that Mark should join. So strong is the disagreement that arises between Paul and Barnabas that they split company, going their own separate ways. The account in Acts is highly suggestive that there is some kind of prior relationship or connection between Barnabas and John Mark, of which the book of Acts does not take notice. However, when we turn to Colossians 4:10, we read, “Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin (ὁ ἀνεψιὸς) of Barnabas…” Thus, we learn that Barnabas and John Mark had a familial relationship. This dovetails with the account in Acts in an incidental and casual way – that is, in a manner that is best explained on the historicity of the account in Acts (and the Pauline authorship of Colossians). It looks like by the time Paul wrote Colossians, during his first Roman imprisonment (60-62 C.E.), the rift that existed between Paul and Barnabas over Mark had been resolved (indeed, it looks like by this time they were on good terms again). But the author of Acts does not appear to be inventing the narrative in Acts 15:37-40 to dovetail with Colossians, since Acts makes no mention of the familial relationship between Mark and Barnabas. Moreover, persons mentioned in Colossians such as Epaphras (Col 1:7; 4:12), Onesimus (Col 4:9), Nympha (Col 4:15), Jesus called Justus (Col 4:11), Archippus (Col 4:17), and Demas (Col 4:14), none of whom are mentioned at all in Acts, suggests that Acts and Colossians are textually independent of one another.
- Mark’s mother in Acts
Mark’s family background also fits naturally with another detail in Acts. One might expect Mark’s mother, as Barnabas’ sister (or at minimum a close relative), to fulfil a prominent role in the Jerusalem church. That this was the case is confirmed incidentally by Acts. In Acts 12:12, we read that, following Peter’s release from prison, “he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying.” Acts omits mention of Mary’s relationship to Barnabas, and Colossians does not refer to her house or her involvement in the Jerusalem church. The two sources dovetail again in a manner that supports the genuineness of Paul’s epistle as well as the historicity of the account in Acts.
- Aristarchus in Rome
In Colossians 4:10-14, Paul writes,
10 Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions—if he comes to you, welcome him), 11 and Jesus who is called Justus. These are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me. 12 Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ Jesus, greets you, always struggling on your behalf in his prayers, that you may stand mature and fully assured in all the will of God. 13 For I bear him witness that he has worked hard for you and for those in Laodicea and in Hierapolis. 14 Luke the beloved physician greets you, as does Demas.
Paul therefore lists a total of eight individuals who are present with him during his imprisonment in Rome. Though Acts references Aristarchus as one of those who travelled with him to Rome (Acts 27:2), the other six companions mentioned in Colossians are not stated by Acts to have been present with Paul in Rome. At the very least, if Acts were dependent on Colossians, one might have expected Mark and Jesus called Justus to have been listed alongside Aristarchus, since these men are mentioned alongside Aristarchus in Colossians 4:10-11. Mark, moreover, is a character already introduced by Acts (12:25, 13:13; 15:37-39) and therefore known to the readers.
Paley summarizes,
The observation that strikes me in reading the passage is, that together with Aristarchus, whose journey to Rome we trace in the history, are joined Marcus and Justus, of whose coming to Rome the history says nothing. Aristarchus alone appears in the history, and Aristarchus alone would have appeared in the epistle, if the author had regulated himself by that conformity. Or if you take it the other way; if you suppose the history to have been made out of the epistle, why the journey of Aristarchus to Rome should be recorded, and not that of Marcus and Justus, if the groundwork of the narrative was the appearance of Aristarchus’s name in the epistle, seems to be unaccountable. [4]
- Persecuted for the Sake of the Gentiles
A point stressed by both Ephesians and Colossians is that Paul’s imprisonment is a result of his ministry to the gentiles. He writes, “For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you gentiles,” (Eph 3:1) and urgers prayer “to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison,” (Col 4:3). The mystery of Christ is defined in Ephesians 3:6: “This mystery is that the gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” The background to these notes is not filled out by the epistles. However, when we turn to Acts, we find that Paul’s evangelism to the gentiles is precisely what provoked the opposition of the Jews – from the turn to the gentiles in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:46-50) through the Jewish mob who stirred up the crowds against Paul and Silas in Thessalonica and Berea (Acts 17:1-15), to the rumors among those in Jerusalem who were zealous for the law concerning Paul’s alleged teaching that the Jews are to abandon the law of Moses and his supposedly bringing gentiles into the temple, ultimately leading to a riot (Acts 21:18-36). When Paul attempts to address the crowd, they listen for some time until he declares that Jesus sent him to the gentiles, after which they break out in an uproar, crying for his blood (Acts 22:21-22). Paul later advises King Agrippa that the Jews seized and attempted to kill him “for this reason” – i.e., his obedience to the heavenly vision sending him to the gentiles (Acts 26:15-23).
Lydia McGrew remarks,
The narrative throughout Acts shows that Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles was a continual cause of conflict with his fellow Jews. His faithfulness to this ministry resulted in his being nearly beaten to death by a mob in the Temple, a fate from which the Roman soldiers rescued him. Protective custody quickly turned into outright imprisonment by the Romans. The remainder of Acts tells of his being tried by the Roman authorities and kept in prison by them partly to please his Jewish opponents, his appeal to Caesar, and his journey to Rome after that appeal. [5]
This complex situation, described in Acts, fits remarkably well with the statements in Ephesians and Colossians about his imprisonment being in consequence of his ministry to the gentiles and proclamation of “the mystery of Christ.”
- Luke as a Gentile
In Colossians 4:7-17, Paul lists various individuals who are present with him in Rome, at the time of his writing. These include Onesimus, who is said to be “one of you” (i.e., a Colossian), Aristarchus, Mark, Jesus who is called Justus, Epaphras (also said to be a Colossian), Luke the physician, and Demas. Of those seven individuals, three (Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus called Justus) are said to be “men of the circumcision,” indicating that they were Jews. The implication is that the others were gentiles, which is further supported by the reference to Onesimus and Epaphras both being “one of you” (i.e., from Colossae, implying that they are gentiles). The implication is that Luke is a gentile. This aligns with the clues in Luke-Acts that the author is a gentile. In particular, Luke lays great stress on the extension of salvation to the gentiles. Moreover, when quoting the Old Testament, Luke consistently follows the Septuagint translation. Luke’s style also reflects literary Greek rather than Semitic Greek (e.g. the prologue in Luke 1:1-4) reads like the preface to a Greek historical work (cf. Thucydides, Hist. 1.21). This supports him being either a highly educated Diaspora Jew, or else a gentile God-fearer. It is unlikely that a Palestinian Jew would write this way.
References:
[1] William Paley, Horae Paulinæ; or, The Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced by a Comparison of the Epistles Which Bear His Name, with the Acts of the Apostles, and with One Another (London: R. Faulder, 1790).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Tampa, FL: DeWard Publishing Company, 2017), 186.
[4] William Paley, Horae Paulinæ; or, The Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced by a Comparison of the Epistles Which Bear His Name, with the Acts of the Apostles, and with One Another (London: R. Faulder, 1790).
[5] McGrew 2017, 216.
Recommended Resources:
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)
The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4)
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (Mp3, and Mp4)
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.
Originally Posted: https://bit.ly/4s4F6BF
