Many critics of the Acts of the Apostles (e.g., Richard Carrier; Richard Pervo) argue that it contains many historical mistakes and, as a result, cannot be trusted. In a recent short volume defending the overall trustworthiness of the New Testament, David Wenham (From Good New to Gospels: What Did the First Christians Say about Jesus? [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2018], 22-24) wrote:
The main arguments for the historical unreliability of Acts have to do with his accounts of Paul which are seen as at odds with Paul’s accounts of himself and his ministry. Acts is thought to have made Paul less radical and to have confusing information about his life. It is not possible to explore the issue in detail here. But these arguments are more tenuous than is often thought.[16] Most of Luke’s history works remarkably well. One example of this is his account of Paul’s ministry at Corinth in Acts. The reference to the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in 18:2 has a supportive parallel in Suetonius’s life of Claudius. Further, his reference to the governor of Achaia, Gallilo, fits with the famous Gallio inscriptions.[17] There are numerous examples in Acts in which factual and topographical details are right (e.g., identifying local officials whom Paul and his party met and giving them their correct titles [13:7; 16:22; 17:6; 18:12; 19:31; 28:7]). Acts is not a novel. Rather, it is well-informed history.
Notes for the Above
[16] One of the much debated questions relating to the reliability of Acts relates to his reference to Paul’s visits to Jerusalem following his conversion, as compared to those in Paul’s letters and especially Galatians. Acts has Paul go up to Jerusalem three times: (1) shortly after this conversion (Acts 9:2-28), (2) on a mercy mission in time of famine (Acts 11:27-29), and (3) to discuss problems over the Gentile mission (Acts 15). Paul, on the other hand, in Gal 2 seems to be detailing his post-conversion visits carefully, and has no reference (apparently) to the famine relief visit. The second visit that he describes is a discussion of the Gentile mission with church leaders. It sounds more like Luke’s third visit. So Luke is often thought to have invented his second visit or to have been quite confused. This conclusion is, however, unwarranted. Paul’s second visit according to Acts (the famine relief visit) occurs after a period described in Acts (11:22-26) when Paul has been working with Barnabas in leading the church in Antioch, the hugely important capital city of the Roman province of Syria (modern Antakya). The notable and controversial thing about this church is that it was, according to Acts, the first church to include a number of uncircumcised Gentile converts, potentially a very worrying situation for the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem. They accordingly sent Barnabas down, according to Acts, to supervise the situation. He approved what was going on and later went on to bring outsider Paul to help lead the church. This is the context within the book of Acts for the famine relief visit to Jerusalem by Paul and Barnabas. Acts does not describe any discussions that there had. Despite this silence, it is unthinkable that Paul and Barnabas would not have had serious discussions with church leaders in Jerusalem about their ministry in Antioch. This is exactly what Galatians suggests happened for Paul’s second visit. The narrative reports that the leaders in Jerusalem gave Barnabas and Paul (who was still suspect to some in Jerusalem) the “right hand of fellowship” to go to the Gentiles, Gal 2:1-10. Far from not fitting, Acts and Galatians fit extremely well. Alternative historical reconstructions do not work as well.
[17] Suetonius, Claud. 25.4. Another interesting convergence of evidence related to Acts 18 involves 1 Thess 2:16, where Paul speaks of Jewish opposition to the gospel and then of “God’s wrath coming on them at last.” This has perplexed commentators, with some concluding that it is a scribal gloss added after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. But Paul is likely writing 1 Thessalonians from Corinth, where he recently arrived. He is probably staying at the home of Aquila and Priscilla, who recently arrived from Rome after the great expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Emperor Claudius. Such an event could very easily have been seen by Paul as a sign of God’s wrath on the Jews. This likelihood increases if Paul had heard of the terrible massacre by Roman soldiers of thousands of Jews in Jerusalem (cf. Josephus, B.J. 9.222-31), which happened in the same year as the expulsion (49 Ce). On this, see Ernst Bammel, “Judenverfolgung und Naherwartung. Zur Eschatologie des ersten Thessalonicherbriefs,” ZTK 56 (1959):294-315, and David Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 299-301. Carol J. Schlueter, Filling up the Measure: Polemical hyperbole in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 (Sheffield, JSOT: 1994), 94-95, 106, agrees that Paul must have an external event, a “large disaster,” in mind. However, she thinks it is impossible to tell what it was. Schlueter mentions Bammel’s argument. She fails to align Acts with 1 Thess 2:17 to see the full significance of the fact that Paul is writing the letter shortly after the expulsion of the Jews from Rome. According to Acts 18:2, Paul was staying and working with people who had recently experienced the trauma of the Claudian expulsion.
