7. Acts and Paul

7. Acts and Paul

7

Comparing Luke’s Pauline information with what scattered details are available in Paul’s letters highlights some contrasts between the two sources (often related to the character of their genre as well as their respective emphases in particular settings) but often underlines their common information. Both the contrasts and the randomness of the correlations suggest that Luke was not simply deriving his Pauline information from Paul’s letters but that both sources independently attest to the historical figure of Paul that stands behind them.

Although Luke and Paul write in different genres and usually have different interests, these sources mostly agree where they treat Pauline chronology and the locations where Paul founded churches. The correspondences between Acts and Paul’s letters are, indeed, so many that Acts must fit ancient history or biography, not the expected conventions of a novel. One would not expect a novelist (e.g., the later author of the Acts of Paul) to preserve so much historical information. The basic events of Paul’s life fit well where we can test them, by ancient historical standards; to infer that Luke’s standard of accuracy is approximately equivalent on such basic events where we cannot test him is logical (an inference the sometimes cavalier dismissal of which is correspondingly illogical).

This observation is not meant to claim that the sources coincide in every detail, but they fall well within the expectations of careful ancient historians treating recent personages. Because this chapter belongs to a commentary introduction and does not constitute a monograph, the treatment here cannot be exhaustive, but it should be sufficient to illustrate the point offered. How Luke filled out the details may be debated, and this commentary treats such questions according to the genres or issues relevant to the individual particulars involved (some in below; others in below; and yet others simply in the comments on passages where they appear) if any evidence exists for an informed historical judgment in either direction.

This chapter first treats Acts’ perspective on Paul (Luke’s apologetic approach, his sources, and his lack of interest in physically describing his protagonist). It then turns to the scholarly debate about how accurately Luke represents Paul in general. After briefly introducing the competing scholarly views regarding Acts’ treatment of Paul, the chapter turns to what not to expect in comparisons between Acts and Paul’s letters (in view of the incompleteness of extant information and the need to allow for the divergent perspectives and emphases of the different sources). It argues that scholars should not simply consistently privilege Paul as a source over against Acts; it does so by comparing other letter collections with histories and biographies and taking into account the limitations of Paul’s letters. Despite the differences between Acts and Paul’s letters, some scholars argue that Luke knew and used Paul’s letters. I argue (with most scholars) that Luke did not use them in Acts (whether or not he knew of them).

The bulk of the chapter focuses on correspondences between Luke and Paul, which cumulatively support Luke’s extensive knowledge of Paul’s ministry. Because some scholars think that Luke’s Paul is too distant theologically from the epistolary Paul for Luke to have known him well, the chapter also addresses theological differences, both real and imagined; some of the alleged contrasts reflect the traditional Protestant misreading of certain Pauline letters, and other differences reflect divergent emphases without, however, providing a real argument against Luke having genuine information about Paul on these various points.

Much of this chapter addresses the congruity of Acts and Paul for the purpose of examining Luke’s historiography. First, however, I will offer preliminary observations regarding Luke’s treatment of Paul.

Although Paul is not the only “hero” or protagonist in Acts, he is the climactic one, and he receives more comment than any other nondivine characters (with Peter coming second). He is also of special concern to Luke, who either was (as I and many others argue; see comment on Acts 16:10) Paul’s traveling companion or (as others argue) presents himself or his source as such. Some scholars think that Luke wrote partly to defend Paul or Pauline Christianity for his generation. Although I was for a time more skeptical of this approach, after working through especially the defense speeches (but also the rest of the Pauline part of Acts), I now concur that this is indeed part of Luke’s apologetic objective (though not his only purpose). Ancients could certainly propagandize for or defend their heroes. Thus the apologetic issue is briefly treated here, but below addresses Luke’s purpose (including its apologetic element) in significantly more detail.

Whether or not Luke (or others) originally collected responses to charges against Paul for a legal brief, most scholars rightly doubt that Acts, as it currently stands, is such a brief. Nevertheless, concerns about Paul seem to have persisted, whether among Roman authorities, among Jewish detractors, among believers, or, more probably, some combination of the above (e.g., Christian concerns raised by Jewish detractors, of relevance to their own current situation vis-à-vis Rome). The charge of stirring unrest (Acts 24:5) was a serious one, and Luke takes it so seriously that his narrative includes both incidents that could be cited against Paul and evidence that in none of these cases did Paul cause the trouble. Luke as an apologist would hardly have cited so many suspicious incidents to begin with if accusations of stirring unrest did not remain too much of a live issue for him to evade.

Passage

Luke’s Perspective

Jewish Involvement?

Acts 9:23–25

Opposition in Damascus

Jewish opposition

13:12

Positive response from the proconsul

Despite a Jewish opponent

13:50

Aristocrats in Pisidian Antioch driving them out (perhaps forgotten by now)

Jewish instigation

14:5

Mob in Iconium

Jewish instigation

14:19

Mob in Lystra nearly killing Paul

Jewish instigation

16:22–23

Beaten in Philippi but vindicated (16:37–40)

Because of anti-Semitism

17:10

Paul’s escape without responding to charges (but these expired once the politarchs left office)

Jewish instigation

17:14

Chased out of Beroea

Jewish instigation

17:32–34

Acceptable response in Athens

No trouble from synagogue

18:12–17

The governor’s rejection of the charges against Paul as purely religious

Jewish legal opposition

19:23

The riot in Ephesus

No Jewish instigation, but it embarrasses the Jewish community

21:28

Riot in the Jerusalem temple

Jewish instigation

Wherever Roman officials appear (before Felix), they are favorable, and the legal precedents positive (18:12–17; cf. 13:12); intellectual dialogue also demonstrates the potential respectability of the movement’s best arguments (17:32–34; 19:9–10). But Jewish instigation appears in the vast majority of the above instances where trouble occurred.

Luke’s account is clearly ironic on this point: it is Paul’s opponents (i.e., those who would be viewed as allied with his accusers) who stirred the riots rather than Paul himself. (For the conventional rhetorical approach of shifting guilt to the accusers, See comment on Acts 24:19.) Meanwhile Paul had some legal precedents in his favor, especially the Achaian governor’s dismissal of frivolous, merely religious charges brought by local synagogue leaders. Such precedents could be concretely documented, and Luke, like Josephus writing apologetic history on behalf of his people, is eager to trot out this information. Luke undoubtedly responds to genuine charges against Paul, and his manner of defense suggests that genuine unrest occurred (though we know that historically Jewish unrest regarding Jesus was not limited to Paul’s mission; see Suet. Claud. 25.4 and comment on Acts 18:2).

Luke includes an apologetic for Paul on another level, for which the Gospel and the first part of Acts prepare (in addition to their other functions). The extensive parallels with Jesus and the Jerusalem Christian leaders (where possible; see below) reveal that those who respect Jesus, Stephen, and Peter should also respect Paul. If he suffered the humiliation of Roman custody and execution, he simply followed the steps of his Lord. (The material on Luke’s apologetic in below and, especially, relevant passages in the commentary develop this observation more fully.) One may also offer connections such as in Acts 26:16: Paul is “servant” and “witness” just like Jesus’s original apostles in Luke 1:2 (despite the different wording).

The Pauline section of Acts also provides a special case study because of its distinctive character. At least in Acts, Luke’s sources appear most complete when he is treating Paul. Although he has done an admirable job of filling in earlier narratives (supplementing them with a greater proportion of speech material), his details for the earlier period tend to be sketchier than when he writes about Paul (especially concerning his later missions and, in greatest detail, the “we” narratives, including Paul’s Roman custody). The transitional Hellenists (Acts 6–8) provide vindication for Paul’s mission, connecting him to the earlier protagonists, especially to Jesus and Peter.

Of greatest concern here, Paul’s writings also provide the clearest basis for external comparison with Acts, compared with the relative paucity of Petrine material (and absence of any early Christian material attributed to Stephen or the evangelist Philip). As a methodological observation, the comparisons I offer here include all the early Pauline literature but with less emphasis on the Pastorals. Although the personal allusions in 2 Timothy incline me to respect the case for Pauline authorship of the Pastorals more than critical scholars commonly do, the matter is too disputed (especially in view of the obviously divergent and apparently incompatible style) for me to argue any position in this commentary without a lengthy excursus. Although a majority of scholars may be skeptical of Pauline authorship, most do allow for Pauline tradition, which is the essential point for comparison in this commentary.

Given his interest in Paul, why does Luke omit a physical description of his appearance, such as is later found in Acts of Paul and Thecla? Ancient biographies commonly provided descriptions of their heroes, especially physically magnificent ones. Praise of physical beauty was also a welcome aspect of Greek epideictic. Some ancients also thought that they could discern one’s personality or future through physiognomy. Perhaps Paul’s appearance was unpleasant. Unpleasant appearance and especially physical deformity invited ridicule, just as did weakness in rhetorical gestures. But ancient writers often did not hesitate to present weaknesses in their heroes’ appearances, whether in epics’ statements about Odysseus or in historical memories of Socrates’s snub nose. Some scholars even propose that Luke more generally subverts physiognomic conventions in his work.

Further, such descriptions were far from mandatory in biographies and were uncommon in histories. Whereas Aristotle stresses physical description, Xenophon mentions it rarely; Plutarch and Diogenes Laertius include it in only some of their biographies; Tacitus’s Agricola provides it only briefly. Luke provides no physical description of Jesus either, whether before or after the resurrection; this omission hardly plays down the importance that Jesus had for Luke. Philosophically minded reporters felt that describing a teacher’s soul was far more important than describing his body (Max. Tyre 1.10); external appearance and false opinions lead to harm for the soul (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 94.13). Luke prefers to depict even Paul’s character indirectly through his actions and speeches rather than through narrative asides.

Most of this chapter must respond to the historical question of how accurately Luke represents Paul. Before examining the evidence, we should note contrasting views on the relationship between Acts and Paul that explain why we should explore the question at some length.

Some NT scholars remain skeptical of Acts as a historical source regarding Paul. Erwin Goodenough provides an extreme example, comparing Luke with those Paul cursed as preachers of a false gospel (Gal 1:8): “For no one in the Galatian or Corinthian churches would have recognized in the pages of Acts the Paul they had heard preach or had read in his letters.” The classic statement of the case, however, comes from Philipp Vielhauer and Haenchen. Often such scholars are more skeptical than historians would be of most other histories or biographies from antiquity, and certainly more skeptical than historians would normally be of other historical works plausibly purporting to describe events that had transpired within the memory of some living witnesses. Historians can disregard some traditions in their sources without dismissing wholesale their value as historical sources.

By contrast, a large number of NT scholars prove less skeptical than Vielhauer and Haenchen and affirm that Acts does reflect valuable tradition or personal knowledge about the genuine historical Paul. Many today also argue, against earlier contrary claims (which often failed to account for differences in genre and purpose), that even the content of Paul’s speeches in Acts genuinely comports well with the Paul of the letters by the standards of ancient historical writing. The speeches may be Luke’s compositions (see below) yet preserve some knowledge about authentic Pauline preaching. Given my earlier discussion of the genre and the expectations that this issue raises for readers of Acts (chs. –), it will not be surprising that I share this higher estimate of Acts’ portrayal of Paul. Before proceeding, however, it must be established what is meant here by a “higher estimate” of his reliability. Luke undoubtedly used his storyteller’s liberty to the extent used by popular historians about recent persons, but, as in the case of these other historians, this freedom does not imply that he “created” events. Luke is not just our best available historian covering Paul’s life (nor simply the only one whom we have) but also (as argued above and further here) a good ancient historian.

Paul’s letters provide the major test case for Acts, as Q and Mark do for Luke’s reports about Jesus in the Gospel. In designing this test, however, some interpreters lay too much weight on the kinds of differences that show us little about Luke’s sources. It is reductionist to assume that differences between Luke’s and Paul’s perspectives and style militate against Luke’s use of the historical Paul, or informants close to him, as a genuine source. We do not doubt that Josephus knew the biblical story of Isaac simply because he expresses it so differently in his Antiquities.

Paul’s readers have reapplied him as a model in various ways through history—for example, as a virtuous model (John Chrysostom) or one struggling with the flesh (Augustine)—not because they lacked access to shared information about Paul (in this case, Acts and the letters) but because their questions and interests differed. Luke certainly has more information about Paul than do many of his successors, even though, according to the vast majority of scholars—both those who think Luke knows Paul well and those who question this judgment—Luke probably did not use Paul’s letters (see below).

Comparing Acts with Paul does not mean that we should seek to find every aspect of the epistolary Paul in Acts, only that what we do find should be compatible with him. When Polybius omits some matters, he warns potential critics that they should not evaluate his performance by what he omits, as if he were unaware of matters he omits. (Here he defends himself against potential charges not even of error but merely of ignorance.) Rather, if they find no errors in what he does recount, they should allow that he omitted other details deliberately, presumably because they did not suit his purpose (Polyb. 6.11.4–8).

Further, we should not assume that our own knowledge of Paul is complete; Paul the letter writer alludes to entire aspects of his public ministry, such as miracle working (Rom 15:19; 2 Cor 12:12) or private mystic experiences (1 Cor 14:18; 2 Cor 12:2–4), that must have consumed a significant part of his time, yet they consume little space in his letters. Some of what we often think we do know is a caricature of Paul, frequently based solely on two letters where he addresses the law most thoroughly (Romans and Galatians) and on the Corinthian correspondence. (Indeed, harmonizing even Romans with the more polemically framed Galatians has challenged many modern interpreters.) Bultmann and his followers unfavorably contrasted Luke as a salvation historian with the epistolary Paul, whom they regarded as an existentialist—a view of the historical Paul no longer compelling. Even the old liberal scholar Harnack was quick to point out that “St. Paul was not so ‘Pauline’—if I may venture the word—as his biographers would have us think.”

The genre differences between letter and history are significant, but more detailed genre differences also come into play. All Paul’s letters are to churches or Christians, and so we must expect Paul’s approach there to differ from his evangelistic speeches in Acts (though we do find parallels in his own allusions to his evangelistic preaching; compare, e.g., Acts 14:15 with 1 Thess 1:9). The one speech in Acts that most closely approximates Paul’s paraenetic instruction in his letters (Acts 20:18–35) is, not coincidentally, the only speech attributed to him in Acts that addresses Christians. (This speech also appears in the context of “we” material.)

Even Paul’s major polemical letters have internal tensions among them; to think that all his companions would have characterized him as we find him in these letters is to assume more than we actually know about him. (We may forgive Jacob Jervell’s exaggeration in thinking that Paul is so diverse in his own writings that it is almost harder to harmonize Paul with Paul than with the flatter portrait in Acts.) Some scholars suggest that if Luke traveled with Paul only during the “we” sections, he may have had much of his Pauline material secondhand (although if, as I think, Luke was also Paul’s companion en route to Rome and had already been researching for his work, he could have obtained this material from Paul himself).

Luke at times may present perspectives on events different from Paul’s without misrepresenting the events themselves. Likewise, he may justify the Gentile mission differently than Paul does (13:46; 18:6; 28:28), without this meaning that he is ignorant of Paul’s approach (cf. the compatible Rom 11:11); certainly for Luke no less than for Paul, Paul is an appointed ambassador to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; 21:19; 22:21; 26:17, 20, 23); and for Paul no less than for Luke, Paul’s mission to Gentiles was inseparable from his love for Israel (Rom 11:13–14).

Luke may not have even grasped the detailed nuances of Paul’s theology as it appears in some of his letters. (Indeed, some commentators suggest that probably most first-century readers did not understand Paul’s letters well; cf. 2 Pet 3:16.) The difference in genre may further facilitate this impression: one cannot write narrative theology (or even summaries of speeches) the way one writes a detailed argument. But even if Luke understood Paul’s theology completely differently than Paul intended (and this is unlikely, whatever may have been his apprehension of some theological nuances), this would not imply that the factual information Luke does possess is wrong.

Time and individual development may account for some shifts. Arguing for the possibility that the Evangelists Mark and Luke were Pauline traveling companions, Adela Yarbro Collins suggests that “if they were young men when they had contact with Paul and wrote fifteen or more years later, after exercising their own leadership in the movement and experiencing individual and communal change and development, such differences would be not only explicable but expected.” One need only compare possibly different pictures of Paul entertained by his close associates with what many students, even long-term students, take away from a teacher’s classes, to recognize that association or even appreciation over a period of time does not guarantee which features of the teacher’s personality or agenda will become foremost in the minds of others. A student who reads my commentary and writes a report will also approach me from a very different standpoint than my son or wife or even my own student would; for that matter, someone could probably read my personal journal (for the years that I kept one) without much awareness that I spend much of my day writing commentaries. One who knew the missionary Paul personally would not write of him with the same emphases as one who merely read his surviving letters.

As Porter observes, “These are merely the kinds of differences that one could expect to find between virtually any two different yet accomplished authors when writing about the same events.” This factor is the same for ancient authors as it is for modern ones. Two collections about Musonius Rufus, for example, present quite different portraits of him.

As noted more fully in below, the speeches in Acts do not offer, for the most part, a helpful stylistic comparison with Paul’s letters. Stylistic comparisons are difficult because Luke writes mostly in his own style (historians usually wrote or rewrote the speeches in their works, though sometimes reflecting genuine subjects of historical speeches; see below). But even were this not the case, we should not expect Paul’s letters to sound precisely like his speeches. As Cicero puts it, noting that he used everyday language in his letters, “I don’t always adopt the same style. What similarity is there between a letter, and a speech in court or at a public meeting?” (Cic. Fam. 9.21.1 [LCL, 2:261]).

Further, Luke does write for his own era, which (by the dating accepted here) is post-Pauline (even if only by a few years). Despite the attention devoted to the Jerusalem Council (ca. 49 C.E.), Luke would not write with the same perspective toward the conflict as the author of Galatians (accepted here as dating to the 50s); many issues were already settled, at least in Luke’s circle of churches (cf. Phil 3:2). That he reserves the title “apostles” almost exclusively for the Twelve and applies it sparingly to Paul (only in Acts 14:4, 14) is a stylistic matter; it hardly means that Luke disparages his hero’s apostleship. Possible debates over the character of Paul’s apostolicity (2 Cor 3:1; 11:12–13, 23; Gal 1:1; 2:6) and issues such as the collection (especially if the latter failed to accomplish what the epistolary Paul hoped) were no longer of critical importance by Luke’s day. To argue for Luke’s inaccuracy on the basis of these omissions is both to argue from silence and to ignore the accuracy of what he does say.

Luke’s emphasis can differ from Paul’s without necessarily departing from facts. For example, Luke, in contrast to Paul, portrays Paul’s high status (including his Roman citizenship) for apologetic reasons, but had Paul historically lacked some form of status, Luke probably would have needed to explain his summary execution rather than his years in Roman custody (Acts 24:27; 28:30; cf. Phil 1:7). Detention until trial could be lengthy, but given the forces ranged against Paul (cf. Rom 15:31; 1 Cor 16:9) and the normal use of custody merely as temporary detention until trial or execution, Paul probably would have faced death more swiftly. Paul’s letters avoid boasting about his social status, but that he did reach some people of status and that his letters betray a much higher level of education than was common, except among the elite, should be admitted as significant factors in this discussion. (See further discussion at Acts 16:37.)

Modern scholars are quick to prefer writings by Paul over writings about him, but the need for this preference becomes self-evident only if Luke did not know Paul and wrote long after him. Certainly, Paul would know his own thoughts better than Luke would (cf. 1 Cor 2:11), but Paul’s letters were also more situation-oriented than Acts is, giving less of a coherent and global summary of his ministry and character than a companion with some advantage of hindsight (and possibly greater objectivity) could provide.

Against the traditional critical assumption that biographies would be less helpful for historical reconstruction than a person’s own letters, some scholars have recently resorted to more objective comparisons of various ancient letter collections with biographies about the people who wrote the letters. Far from the biographies proving uniformly biased, they exhibit varying degrees of tendentiousness or accuracy. Thus one cannot claim before examining them that Acts and Paul will contradict each other; they may prove complementary. Roman historians make comparable use of both Cicero’s letters and Sallust’s “only slightly later history” describing the Catiline rebellion; also of Favorinus’s corpus and the discussions by his “contemporary, Gellius, and a later writer, Philostratus; and the much later case of the use of the letters of Julian and the history of Ammianus.”

Acts is obviously more direct and complete in its portrait of Paul than the letters are, and may include elements of the historical Paul that we would miss when reading merely his occasional letters. Pauline scholars must make some use of Acts if they wish to do more than comment on his theology or on isolated data such as his relations with particular churches. Just as we would not a priori exclude either the letters by, or biographies about, any other ancient figure whose life we sought to reconstruct, students of Paul cannot afford to dispense with everything that Acts contains; his letters alone do not provide historians sufficient material. Even if some scholars find difficulty matching all elements of Acts, which does not include all of Paul’s life, with Paul’s chronology, an attempt to construct a Pauline chronology on objective data entirely apart from Acts is nearly hopeless. Apart from three sequences, scholars who attempt to construct outlines from Paul’s letters without using Acts produce widely different portrayals.

In the same way, we could compare with Paul’s letters the epistles in Cicero’s collection Letters to Friends; historians can use these epistles as primary documents for the civil wars (e.g., official letters from consuls to Marc Antony). While they flesh out and personalize the broader narratives of Roman historians who covered this period, they are much more intelligible to us in the context of the connected narratives of the historians, who wrote with access to fuller data than we possess (just as Luke’s many incidental correspondences to Paul’s occasional letters, very probably without dependence on them, suggest that he had access to data that we do not possess). Acts and Paul’s letters are works of Mediterranean antiquity, and NT scholars should not treat Acts more skeptically than historians would treat comparable works.

Is it difficult to reconcile some features of Acts with some features of Galatians or other letters? Witherington, pointing to rhetorical forms and strategies in Paul’s letters, argues that all of them, including Galatians (I would suggest, especially Galatians), are tendentious; many or perhaps even most of his autobiographic remarks are apologetic. Another scholar observes that, like Acts, Galatians uses “history to make theological points. Therefore neither source deserves markedly to outrank the other.” In his letters, Paul’s “comments are ad hoc, occasional, selective, and often highly rhetorical.” Further, though Paul is obviously an eyewitness to his own life, his autobiographical remarks are “often indirect or in passing.” And as Riesner notes, many “contradictions” are not between Acts and Paul’s letters themselves but between our interpretations of these documents. Many, indeed, appear in interpretations of Paul’s letters themselves, for example, between Romans and Galatians. (Some current Romans scholarship finds it compatible with Luke’s “very Jewish Paul.”)

Jervell argues that Paul’s letters are too occasion-oriented to give us a balanced picture of him; Acts gives a broader, more “balanced” perspective of Paul’s ministry as a whole. Thus, as in Acts 16:3, 18:18, and 21:26, the historical Paul was himself Jewish (cf. also Rom 3:31; 9:3–5; 11:1) and should not be “Paulinized” wholly in light of Galatians (via the later construct of Luther and some modern scholars). Jervell’s warning on this matter is apropos and can apply to other aspects of Luke’s presentation as well. Paul and Luke often offer different kinds of information; both reflect perspectives that must be taken into account when they are being used for purposes of modern historiography.

A minority of scholars attribute Luke’s knowledge about Paul not to independent sources but to Paul’s letters themselves; in this case, Luke’s coincidences with the letters do not suggest his access to further information but only to mostly the sources we already have (depending on the range of Pauline letters available to Luke).

Scholars articulate a variety of views as to whether Luke knew and used Paul’s letters. Some believe that Luke used Paul’s letters in writing his own story of Paul or even that he wrote Acts as an introduction to Paul’s letter collection. John Knox admits that there is no clear evidence that Luke used Paul’s letters (Luke certainly does not cite them), but thinks it a priori likely that they were important in the church. Certainly, Paul’s letters were being circulated by the date that Knox gives for the final edition of Luke-Acts (ca. 125 C.E., as a reaction to Marcion’s abuse of Luke and Paul), but this date is highly unlikely for the work (unless one thinks of some later text traditions as the “work”). Most scholars today recognize Knox’s reconstruction as highly speculative.

But one need not date Luke-Acts so late as to think that he would have had access to Paul’s letters. Certainly, if Luke wrote in the late 80s or 90s, he should have known of some of Paul’s letters or perhaps even the collection of them. Allusions in Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, 2 Pet 3:15–16, and, later, Marcion’s canon suggest that at least the bulk of the letters had been collected and were being referred to by the end of the first century. Unless Luke depends on Josephus, however (and as below notes, the arguments for this are quite weak), there is no reason to date Acts in the 90s; scholars who argue that Luke was a companion of Paul, in fact, usually date his work to the mid-80s at the latest. The premise that Luke uses Paul’s letters rests on prior assumptions about the work’s date (on which see our introduction, –).

Most scholars doubt that Luke knew Paul’s letters; some argue that he probably did not know them because they probably had not yet been collected. It does indeed appear likely that Acts was composed (see ) before Paul’s letters were collected. More concretely, most cite the minor discrepancies with Paul’s letters and the relatively few echoes of them (possibly excepting Acts 9:20, 13:38–39, and some of 20:18–35) in his speeches. On the basis of the “we” narratives, Luke (or his eyewitness source, in this view) would not have been present during the writing of Paul’s letters before his Roman (or Caesarean) imprisonment.

Fitzmyer suggests that Luke could have had access to the letters if Paul had kept copies with him, but he doubts Luke’s access on the grounds that he wrote as much as two decades later. One need not date Acts this late, however, to conclude that Luke would not have had access to many of the letters by means of Paul. Scribes would have made second copies of his long letters, but these would have remained with the sending churches; it is highly unlikely, for example, that Paul would have carried (and undoubtedly lost in his serial misfortunes) a bag of used scrolls from one place to another. Luke would have known where to find letters (e.g., at Corinth) had he needed them, but (in my view of the “we” narratives) he probably regarded his personal acquaintance with Paul and his circle as sufficient for his purposes. When historians did use documents such as letters for earlier persons, they frequently displayed their documentary research (or invention at times) by citing them; Luke’s failure to do so is conspicuous.

One could argue that Luke knew, and that his work reflects, some of Paul’s letters without having access to the entire collection. For example, M. D. Goulder argues that “Luke knew 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians.” He seeks to establish this position on the basis of clusters of words found both in Luke’s redaction in the Gospel and in these letters, but with a few possible exceptions, his connections are not distinctive enough to be convincing. To the extent that any possible echoes appear, they may reflect the influence of Pauline preaching (not surprising if Luke was a traveling companion or even simply belonged to a Pauline church) rather than his letters per se.

Other scholars believe that Luke could have known some of Paul’s letters but need not have used them; certainly, if Luke was near Philippi about 50–58 C.E., he should have known Philippians. But unless Paul’s letters were collected by the time Luke wrote Acts (and they probably were not), Luke would have had access, at most, to a few of them—and perhaps not thought it necessary to consult even these. Granted, historians sometimes appended, quoted, or even invented letters as documents (Luke certainly resists the temptation to compose a Pauline letter in Acts). Biographers sometimes did cite literary epistles by their protagonists when these epistles were among the prominent material still available about these persons (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.33.628). But in contrast to these writers, Luke nowhere cites such documents as authorities, and if Luke had enough to say about Paul without the letters, he had little reason to depend on them or consult them.

Because of their later canonical status, readers of Paul’s letters today often attribute to the letters a function out of proportion to their historical role in Paul’s larger ministry. (Even early post-Pauline readers of Acts often felt the natural impulse to connect Acts with Paul’s letters.) Granted, the Corinthian correspondence had a major impact on Paul’s relations with the Corinthians while he was away from them. But given Paul’s year and a half among them in person (Acts 18:11), which Luke surveys in merely a few paragraphs in Acts 18, we ask too much if we expect Luke to expend space merely on these letters.

Indeed, if Luke knew much about Paul’s ministry, he would have little reason to refer much to the letters. That he appears to contradict them on some points of detail (Acts 17:14–16; 1 Thess 3:1–2) or emphasize very different points in the same stories (Acts 9:23–25; 2 Cor 11:32–33) reinforces the likelihood that he did not invent stories based on them and that where his accounts agree with Paul’s letters (e.g., the majority of elements in these same passages), they do so independently of the letters. Luke presumably knew that Paul wrote letters, and may have known some of these letters, but they were less important to him than the living memory of Paul himself.

If Luke knew and depended on Paul’s letters, some features of Acts are difficult to explain. Why are incidental details so often confirmed (as will be noted below) when Luke omits most of the heart of the Corinthian correspondence (such as the names of most persons there; the collection and all but the barest mention of the Achaian trip connected to it; and conflict over status, spiritual gifts, etc.)? Why does Romans leave no direct trace (with Phoebe at Cenchreae, Prisca and Aquila explicitly back at Rome, and the Roman church struggling with Jewish-Gentile issues)? Why do we not read of “Galatians” rather than of that province’s towns more specifically mentioned in Acts? Why do key elements of these letters’ theology appear only sporadically, though in appropriate settings (e.g., Paul addresses justification by faith with a synagogue audience and uses “natural theology” when addressing some Gentiles)? Had Luke drawn on Galatians, as some have argued, we should not expect such ambiguity as to fuel the long-standing debate as to whether Acts 15 does (as I think) or does not reflect the events also reported in Gal 2:1–10. Even if Luke knew some of Paul’s letters, they seem to have interested him far less than Paul’s life.

Sometimes those who argue that Luke depended on Paul’s letters also criticize him for misunderstanding the Pauline theology we infer from the same letters, but it is hard to have it both ways. While I argue that some scholars have exaggerated the differences between Luke’s Paul and the letters’ Paul, I believe that the former would look much more like the latter if Luke had Paul’s letters as a significant (and probably most direct) source. If Luke drew from Paul’s letters, he must have done so mostly unconsciously, having forgotten most of what he read (yet remembering some obscure historical details)! Other constructs appear much likelier than the thesis that Luke depended on Paul’s letters.

As an aside, we may note that some scholars also believe that Luke participated in the production of the Pastoral Epistles, which many scholars also hold to include at least a significant deposit of Pauline tradition. Luke’s itinerary for Paul, however, does not fit the itinerary of the Pastorals; they can be reconciled if (plausibly) Paul was released, traveled further, and was again imprisoned in Rome at a later date, but the return to Ephesus implied in the Pastorals (1 Tim 1:3) does not fit easily with Acts 20:25 (though see comment there). In my view, the content of the Pastorals is thus not fitted closely or deliberately to the narrative in Acts. (Moreover, against some scholars, use of an amanuensis should not be ruled out, whoever wrote the works; the uneducated used scribes because they needed them, and the well-to-do because they could afford them.) Although Luke’s involvement in the Pastorals remains possible (see esp. 2 Tim 4:11), it is not certain.

If one argues for dependence on Paul’s collected letters, one must ask how he comes by his other early information (confirmed by other external sources), many unusual deviations from the reports in Paul’s letters, silence about those letters (and key elements in them), and the strong divergence from the itinerary in the Pastorals’ traditions (see the excursus “Acts and the Pastorals” at Acts 20:25). The apologetic for Paul also likely reflects charges fresh in the minds of Luke’s ideal audience. Most works after Paul’s letters do not hew to Pauline chronology and so forth the way that Acts does (see below).

Here and hereafter, for the purposes of this commentary, I will use most of Pauline literature as a backdrop for the “epistolary Paul,” with whom I will compare the Lukan portrait of Paul. Paul’s letters correspond with Acts substantially in their treatment of events and chronology.

Luke often names people also named by Paul, yet he does this without depending on Paul’s letters, as is shown by his use of less formal names (e.g., Prisca and Priscilla). Luke’s itinerary for Paul’s journeys in the “we” narrative is accurate, as well as titles of officials (such as “politarchs”) in various locales. Someone could argue that Luke simply traveled, learned local color, knew when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, and knew the names of Paul’s colleagues in ministry (presumably without, as noted above, knowledge of his letters), then simply invented stories about Paul. But accuracy in so many details is not typical of fiction, and Paul’s letters confirm many details about the founding of the churches, the order in which Paul evangelized them, and so forth. Would Luke coincidentally prove accurate on information that happens to remain extant, yet fictionalize everywhere else?

One might then object that the broad contours of Luke’s history are most accurate but that his accounts of Paul as miracle worker—most objectionable to modern Western tastes—are Lukan creations. Some scholars have argued that the epistolary Paul, in contrast to Luke’s Paul, was not much of a miracle worker. Although Paul’s miracles do not have reason to come up more often than other aspects of his initial evangelization activities (e.g., 1 Thess 1:9; 1 Cor 2:1–5; Gal 4:13–14), they do appear quite significant to his evangelistic activity when they are mentioned. Paul recounts these as an integral part of his ministry (Rom 15:19; 2 Cor 12:12; cf. Gal 3:5), sometimes even in locations where Luke omits them (2 Cor 12:12; cf. 1 Cor 1:22); he has other supernatural experiences (1 Cor 9:1; 14:18, 37; 15:8; 2 Cor 12:1–4, 7; Gal 1:15–16) and expects such experiences in his churches (1 Cor 12–14; Gal 3:5; 1 Thess 5:20).

If we cannot attribute the agreement with Paul’s letters to dependence on Paul’s letters (and we probably cannot), the agreement probably indicates dependence on eyewitness tradition about Paul or on contact with Paul himself. As the commentary will illustrate and some recent essays have demonstrated, events in Paul’s life depicted in Acts comport well with those in Paul’s letters. For example, his letters reveal a Paul concerned to reach both Jews and Gentiles with his message, as in Acts (e.g., Acts 9:15; Rom 1:14–16).

Various scholars have provided lists of correspondences. Long ago Harnack concluded that the agreements are so substantial where Luke can be checked that doubting him where he cannot be is wildly speculative. In an excursus, he noted thirty-nine cases where Paul’s letters corroborate Acts; the most persuasive are listed here:

Not only does Luke get correct many data in the first (and most disputed) half of Acts; his record also fits the sequence of Paul’s missionary work, as noted by Thomas H. Campbell more than half a century ago:

As for areas where Paul is silent in contrast to Luke, Paul’s “from Jerusalem as far as Illyricum” implies that he worked in more places than he records. No novel known to us from antiquity betrays such detailed correspondences with external, incidental information. Moreover, no ancient author would have worked so hard to extract such information from occasional documents, then failed to cite them.

Charles Talbert draws attention to the work of both Harnack and Campbell and challenges the skepticism of many scholars who have paid inadequate attention to such correspondences. The assumption that Acts is a later secondary source less reliable than Paul’s letters, he warns, merits “careful reconsideration given the nature of autobiography in antiquity.”

Goulder may explain the source of Luke’s information differently than we would, but he helpfully lists the following points of agreement between some of Paul’s undisputed letters and Acts (with an emphasis on 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians):

A number of other examples could be added, among the most important being the occasion of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 and Gal 2:1–10; although this correlation has often been disputed, the connections are significant (see discussion at Acts 15). The following section explores some of these other correlations (besides some overlapping with observations above).

Many scholars have offered lists of Pauline correspondences; my brief treatment here will necessarily overlap with some of them. Nevertheless, because these correspondences are so critical to the argument about Acts and the particular character of Luke’s historiography, I cannot complete the discussion of my earlier chapters regarding Acts’ genre without addressing this issue or by simply footnoting other important studies. Although the commentary proper provides more detailed comparisons, I will compare here some of Paul’s letters, usually undisputed ones.

In most of the following examples, differences in detail suggest that Luke is not depending on Paul’s letters or seeking to impress those with access to them. Nevertheless, the areas of coincidence are so many that we may conclude that Luke clearly reports genuine historical events. That is, Luke is writing history, not a novel, and he does not invent events even if he may elaborate at points (most obviously, the behind-the-scenes dialogue of Festus with Agrippa and Berenice, Acts 25:14–22), as historians often did (maintaining a narrative rather than explanatory genre). Even some of the divergent details below could be explained as historically reliable, but comment regarding these questions must be reserved for the relevant commentary passages.

The respective accounts of Paul’s conversion, for example, focus on different details (and Luke emphasizes the theophanic element more than in other disciples’ resurrection encounters, a point not clear in, though neither clearly contradicted by, Paul’s letters). Nevertheless, Luke and Paul overlap at some significant points: Paul was converted through a revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal 1:12), presumably meaning a revelation the content of which was Jesus Christ (1:16); this interpretation fits the context (1:15–16) and other Pauline passages (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8). Paul did not solicit the revelation; it came freely by divine grace (Gal 1:15). It came in the context of his call to preach among Gentiles (Gal 1:15–16; Acts 9:15; 26:20). This call occurred somewhere near Nabatean Arabia, near Damascus (Gal 1:17), and in the period when he was persecuting Christians (1:13). Paul himself claims to have experienced a “revelation” of Christ (1:12, 16) and (more explicitly than Acts 9:3–8; 22:6–7; 26:13–14; but see 9:17; 22:14–15; 26:16) to have seen Jesus (1 Cor 9:1) in a sort of belated resurrection appearance (15:8). As in Acts, Paul apparently starts with his own people (cf. Rom 1:16), including in Jerusalem (15:19).

Event

Acts

Paul

Paul was converted through a revelation of Jesus Christ, presumably meaning a revelation the content of which was Jesus Christ

Acts 9:3–6; 22:7–10; 26:13–15

Gal 1:12, 15–16; 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8

Paul did not solicit the revelation; it came freely by divine grace

Acts 9:3–5; 22:6–7; 26:9–14

Gal 1:15; 1 Cor 15:8–9

It came in the context of his call to preach among Gentiles

Acts 9:15; 26:20; cf. (diplomatically) 22:15

*

This occurred somewhere near Nabatean Arabia, near Damascus

Acts 9:3; 22:6, 10–11; 26:12, 20

Gal 1:17; cf. 2 Cor 11:32

It occurred in the period when he was persecuting Christians

Acts 9:2, 4; 22:4, 7–8; 26:9–15

Gal 1:13; cf. 1 Cor 15:8–9

Paul counts the beginning of his ministry in Jerusalem (though he was in “Arabia” earlier)

Acts 9:26, 28; 26:20

Rom 15:19; cf. Gal 1:17

^*Paul also employs Ἀφορίζω with respect to his calling (Rom 1:1; Gal 1:15); cf. Acts 13:2.

No matter how Luke may have adapted this account in retelling it as a coherent narrative (cohering also with his larger work), he is clearly not writing imaginative fiction but develops genuine pre-Lukan information. If this is the case where we can test him, we ought to infer that it is also the case where we cannot test him. This case regarding Paul’s conversion is all the more significant in that it occurs before the “we” narrative, though it was probably also one of Paul’s more frequently retold stories.

We may also compare the accounts of Paul and Luke regarding Paul’s first escape from Damascus; although they diverge on the identity of his opponents, they otherwise tell the same story:

Acts 9:23–25

2 Cor 11:32–33

Jews

ethnarch

Jews

ethnarch

Let down in a basket from the wall (9:25)

window

Again, Paul speaks of his visit to Jerusalem as involving Cephas and James, not the other apostles, whereas Luke more generally summarizes Paul as spending time with “the apostles”; in other respects, however, they clearly report the same event:

Acts 9:26–30

Gal 1:18–19

Paul went from Damascus to Jerusalem (9:25–26)

Paul went from Damascus to Jerusalem (1:17–18)

Barnabas made the introduction to the disciples (9:26–27)

(Missing, but Paul’s letters attest Barnabas’s prominence)

Paul met the apostles (9:27)

Paul met Cephas and James (1:18–19)

Paul continued in association with the apostles (9:28)

Paul stayed with Cephas fifteen days (1:18)

Paul’s stay was apparently relatively brief (9:29–30)

Paul’s stay was brief (1:18)

Although the absence of Titus from Acts seems particularly curious, Luke knows many of the major figures from Pauline tradition, including Peter, John, James, Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, and Aquila and Priscilla as well as some of the less prominent characters, such as Mark (Acts 12:12; Col 4:10; Phlm 24; cf. 2 Tim 4:11), Aristarchus (Acts 19:29; 20:4; 27:2; Col 4:10; Phlm 24), Tychicus (Acts 20:4; Eph 6:21; Col 4:7; cf. 2 Tim 4:12; Titus 3:12), Sopater (Acts 20:4; Sosipater in Rom 16:21), Crispus (Acts 18:8; 1 Cor 1:14), and Trophimus (Acts 20:4; 21:29; cf. 2 Tim 4:20). Unless we postulate dependence on Paul’s letters (which again fails to explain the incongruities), Luke is extremely well informed about Paul’s immediate circle (see ).

Luke’s travel narratives also comport well with Paul’s letters. Both Paul’s letters and the rapid growth of eastern Mediterranean Diaspora churches that later claimed him as one of their founders testify that Paul did undertake such travels. Despite the incompleteness of both Acts and Paul’s letters, we know from Paul’s letters (as scholars cited earlier have pointed out) that Paul did in fact minister in most of the cities and regions that Luke mentions, and did reach them (where our sources overlap) in the same sequence. By contrast, neither source portrays Paul visiting prestigious major centers such as Alexandria or Seleucia on the Tigris (half of the empire’s four largest cities). A novel need not have followed the events of Paul’s ministry so carefully; a proper history, by contrast, might exercise freedom to fill in details but would not invent events such as the founding of Paul’s churches.

Name

Acts

Pauline Literature

Peter/Cephas

Acts 1–12 passim; 15:7

1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:7–11, 14

John

1:13; 3:1–11; 4:6, 13, 19; 8:14;12:2

Gal 2:9

James

12:17; 15:13; 21:18

1 Cor 15:7; Gal 1:19; 2:9, 12

Barnabas

9:27; 11:22, 30; 12:25–15:38

1 Cor 9:6; Gal 2:1, 9, 13; Col 4:10

Silas/Silvanus

15:22–18:5 2 Cor 1:19;

1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1

Timothy

16:1; 17:14–15; 18:5; 19:22; 20:4

Rom 16:21; 1 Cor 4:17; 16:10; 2 Cor 1:1, 19; Phil 1:1; 2:19; Col 1:1; 1 Thess 3:2, 6; Phlm 1; etc.

Aquila and Priscilla

18:2, 18, 26 Rom 16:3;

1 Cor 16:19; 2 Tim 4:19

Mark

12:12, 25; 15:37, 39

Col 4:10; Phlm 24; 2 Tim 4:11

Aristarchus

19:29; 20:4; 27:2

Col 4:10; Phlm 24

Tychicus

20:4

Eph 6:21; Col 4:7; cf. 2 Tim 4:12; Titus 3:12

Sopater/Sosipater

20:4

Rom 16:21

Crispus

18:8 1

Cor 1:14

Trophimus

20:4; 21:29 2

Tim 4:20

Many classical historians find Acts one of the most valuable sources (even “most valuable of all”) because it is one of our few sources for travel conditions for “the plain civilian or merchant” in this period. I trace here some further samples from Acts 13–28, in roughly the sequence in which they will appear in the commentary. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians is consistent with the knowledge that Antioch was a base for both Paul and Barnabas (Gal 2:11, 13), so that decisions there could affect Galatia’s churches (hence the potential magnitude of 2:11–14). If one accepts the South Galatian hypothesis, which seems to fit better with the whole of our evidence and is probably now the majority view (see this commentary’s introduction to the fifteenth chapter of Acts), Paul’s letters also suggest, in at least a general way, the evangelization reported in Acts 13–14.

Paul’s letters do not lay out his missionary strategy, but Luke’s portrayal of his ministry as starting in synagogues (e.g., Acts 13:5) comports well with what the letters do reveal. Paul’s understanding of salvation history gives priority for the Jew first and then the Gentile (Rom 1:16; 2:9–10). He explicitly claims to have adapted himself to reach Jews as well as Gentiles (1 Cor 9:20) so that all might be saved (9:22); no place in the Diaspora was better suited for religious discussion with gathered Jews (and even God-fearers) than the synagogue. Even contexts emphasizing Paul’s mission to the Gentiles (e.g., Rom 11:13; 15:16, 18) reflect deep concern for reaching his own people (11:14). He would hardly have been disciplined in synagogues (2 Cor 11:24) if he remained uninvolved in them. Paul’s letters also presuppose a measure of biblical literacy in most of his churches, which in turn might presuppose (in such young churches) some Jewish believers or God-fearers there (albeit in some churches more than others). (See fuller discussion at Acts 13:5.)

Paul’s stoning in Lystra in Acts fits his own report. Lest we suppose Luke’s narratives too dramatic in such cases as this, Paul records sufferings far more extensive in his own writings (1 Cor 4:9–13; 2 Cor 1:4–10; 4:8–12; 6:4–10; 11:23–28), including far more beatings and shipwrecks than Acts records (2 Cor 11:23–25). Paul attests that he faced dangers both from his fellow Jews and from Gentiles (11:26 mentions both). Most relevant of all, he explicitly notes that he was once stoned (11:25). That Paul and Barnabas would return to cities where they had begun churches (Acts 14:21b) also fits what we know of the historical Paul. He continually carried concern for his churches (2 Cor 11:28–29; 1 Thess 3:5–7) and made plans to visit when possible (1 Cor 4:18–21; 16:3–7; 2 Cor 12:20–13:2; Phil 2:24; Phlm 22).

The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 betrays several significant points of contact with Paul’s own account in Gal 2:1–10. (For reasons offered at Acts 15, I find this correlation far more convincing than the proposed correlation with Acts 11:30.) Acts 15 reports decrees sent only as far as Syria-Cilicia, that is, Antioch’s (and Tarsus’s) province (15:23, 41). This limitation suggests that Luke accurately reports a period in which the “Judaizers” opposed in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians have not yet reached Galatia (although no one doubts that Luke writes after Paul wrote Galatians). Numerous commonalities are evident:

Commonalities

Acts 15:6–22

Gal 2:1–10

The same basic object

15:5

2:4

The same basic outcome

15:19–21, 28–29

2:5–6

Paul’s mission is recognized

15:12

2:2

Leaders agree that Gentiles need not be circumcised

15:19–20

2:7–9

Peter was involved

15:7–11

2:9

James was involved

15:13–21

2:9

James holds special rank in the assembly

Cf. 15:19 (and 12:17)

2:9 (listing him first among the pillars)

James is apparently associated with conservatives

*

2:12

^*James’s words appear to carry weight with them here; he belongs to the group that interprets the conservative faction’s concerns in Acts 21:18–25.

Differences in the details included (such as the agreement that Paul should care for the poor, Gal 2:10) and in perspective must be factored into our evaluation of Luke’s historiography, but these were to be expected among ancient (and, to a different extent, all) historians. What is clear is that Luke deals here in real events, not novelistic fabrication, however much he (like other historians) defines his own focus and approach.

On the historical level, Paul was publicly shamed in Philippi (1 Thess 2:2; Acts 16:22–23), and the rest of his welcome in Macedonia seems to have been no more hospitable. Likewise, there can be no question that the hostility was severe in Thessalonica and that it also continued after Paul left (Acts 17:13). Paul writes that the believers there received the word amid affliction (1 Thess 1:6) and that he had preached there in the face of hostility (2:2). In Luke’s report of Paul’s Thessalonian ministry (Acts 17:1–9), the most significant differences from 1 Thessalonians are Luke’s emphasis on Jewish opposition; that Paul seems to presuppose a longer stay in Thessalonica than Luke reports; and the details of who stayed behind. These instances may reveal a degree of flexibility in details, though no more than one expects in other historians. The points of commonality, however, are too striking for a mere novel:

1 Thessalonians

Acts 17:1–9

The church knows Silvanus and Timothy (1:1)

Luke implies the presence of Silas (17:10, 14) and Timothy (17:14)

Converts turned from idols (1:9)

Converts included Gentiles (though many were already God-fearers; 17:4)

*

Paul was accused of preaching “another king,” Jesus (17:7)

Paul came to Thessalonica from Philippi, where he suffered shame (2:2)

They left Philippi under duress (16:40) and, after traveling through two other towns en route, reached Thessalonica (17:1)

†

They encountered opposition (17:5–9), including false accusations of being politically subversive (17:6–7)

‡

The church had to suffer publicly (17:7, 9), though Paul’s situation was more severe (17:10)

Some Jewish people have proved hostile to the Gentile mission (2:16)

Paul faced Jewish opposition (17:5)

Satan thwarted Paul’s return (2:18); it was safe for Timothy to return, but not Paul (3:1–2)

The politarchs’ decree against Paul made his return dangerous until they left office (17:8–10)

Unemployment was a major local problem (4:11–12; cf. 2 Thess 3:6–12)

Unemployed men from the marketplace constituted a local problem (17:5)

^*The connection with “meeting” in 1 Thess 4:17 confirms the likelihood of this sense of parousia (Best, Thessalonians, 199; Bruce, Thessalonians, 102; idem, Books, 68–69; Marshall, Thessalonians, 131; see further comment at Acts 28:15).

^†See here Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse.”

^‡It might even relate to some dying (1 Thess 4:13), though this is questionable. For this passage’s probable authenticity, see comment on Acts 17:5.

Riesner’s comparisons are even more detailed and more optimistic than mine here. Of twenty-five details in Acts, most (eighteen to nineteen) of them “are either directly or indirectly confirmed by 1 Thessalonians.” Luke has some independent details, of which “four can be checked” by external means and two are possible; if one uses minimalist criteria, four of his details appear questionable “or one-sided,” but “none of them is impossible. On the whole, these are quite admirable findings for an ancient historian.”

We can also place Paul’s Thessalonian ministry securely in the larger context of the sequence of this “missionary journey” reported by Luke:

Public beating in Philippi

1 Thess 2:2

Acts 16:22–23

Successful but persecuted ministry in Thessalonica

Phil 4:15–16; 1 Thess 1:1, 5–6

Acts 17:1–10

Paul in Athens

1 Thess 3:1

Acts 17:15–34

Paul in Achaia with his companions

2 Cor 1:19; cf. 1 Thess 3:6

Acts 18:1–18, esp. 18:5

Historically, we know that Paul traveled to Thessalonica after Philippi (1 Thess 2:2) and that he went soon after to Athens (1 Thess 3:1; Acts 17:10–15), and probably we can add that he went to Corinth afterward (2 Cor 11:7–9). Of course, even if we lacked these details, the fact that Paul evangelized these areas would lead us to expect this basic sequence on the basis of geography, in a world where travel was much slower than for much of the world today.

Luke presents Paul as founder of the Corinthian church, as do Paul’s letters (1 Cor 3:6; 4:15; cf. 1:16; 16:15). The agreements between Acts and Paul’s letters regarding his Corinthian ministry are substantial, including the following details:

Paul’s travel plans reported in Acts 19:21 fit Lukan theology (cf. Luke 9:51), but the thoughts that Luke attributes to Paul here were authentically the historical Paul’s. Paul certainly had plans to go both to Jerusalem (Rom 15:25; 2 Cor 1:16; cf. 1 Cor 16:3) and (afterward) Rome (Rom 1:11, 13; 15:23–24; cf. 2 Cor 10:16). Paul also carries out these plans both in Acts and in the record in his letters. This is one of the few parts of Paul’s life where his letters provide a secure sequence, and the sequence here in Acts and in following chapters fits Paul’s letters precisely where there is overlap. Neither source includes every detail found in the other (if they did, we would need to suspect dependence), but they confirm each other on the points where they overlap (see ).

Paul does not mention the Ephesian riot (and cannot do so in the letters in question, which precede the time when the event would have occurred, near the end of his stay there). But he speaks of public conflicts with people hostile to his ministry in Ephesus (1 Cor 15:32; 16:8–9; 2 Cor 1:8); such letters suggest that, if anything, Paul suffered much worse in Ephesus than Luke indicates (a suspicion not diminished by Acts 20:16). Luke’s central point (Paul’s persecution for his successful ministry in Ephesus) is confirmed by Paul’s letters, regardless of how much Luke may have dramatized the event. (Moreover, as noted previously, Luke has no reason to invent riots involving Paul, given the apologetic problem to which he was responding; See comment on Acts 24:5.)

Paul’s traveling companions mentioned in 20:4 overlap with Paul’s letters. These include Sopater of Beroea, probably called Sosipater in Romans; Aristarchus appears with Paul in his later imprisonment (Phlm 24; Col 4:10); Tychicus, Trophimus, and particularly Timothy all appear in letters attributed to Paul. That the agreement of Gal 2:1–10 would have been discussed on the occasion of Paul’s meeting with the Jerusalem leaders, as in Acts 21:25, is likely historically, since, despite Luke’s silence about the matter, this was the occasion when Paul brought the collection (Rom 15:26–31), and the collection (or something like it) was part of the original agreement (Gal 2:10).

That some Jewish opposition led to Paul’s detention by Romans in Jerusalem fits Luke’s narrative pattern but is also historically likely. Paul expected opposition in Jerusalem (Rom 15:31), and we know that he was detained by the Romans sometime after this (see Phil 1:7, 13, 14, 17; Col 4:3, 18). Why would the Romans just happen to detain Paul in Judea, especially given their stronger economic ties with Asia and Achaia? Unless Paul were caught by Roman authorities in an apparently illegal act, Rome normally depended on local accusations for arrests.

Even the original temple charge (though formulated in clearly Lukan language) gains plausibility as pre-Lukan information based on Pauline literature. Luke’s report of the temple charge, though part of a larger pattern in Acts, also dovetails well with tradition independently preserved in Ephesians (although many scholars attribute it to one of Paul’s disciples rather than to the apostle himself). Whether the implied setting is fictive or not (I myself am inclined to argue that it is not), the implied author Paul writes from detention (Eph 3:1; 6:20), reminding Asian Christians of the unity of Jewish and Gentile believers in 2:11–13; 3:1–8. Most relevant is that Paul emphasizes the unity of Jew and Gentile through the image of a new temple (2:19–22) with a shattered dividing barrier (2:14). Paul is a prisoner for the sake of the Gentiles (3:1, 13) in this new temple (2:19–22). If Luke’s account is, as I would suggest, accurate in its essentials, the Christians of Asia would know from their agents (Acts 21:29; cf. 20:4) and perhaps also from their enemies (21:27) that the charge of violating the Jewish-Gentile partition in the temple was the cause of Paul’s detention. This background would make Ephesians’ use of the temple and dividing barrier all the more meaningful.

Paul’s Letters

Acts

*

Paul strengthened “the disciples” throughout Galatia and Phrygia (18:23)

Paul’s ministry in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8)

Paul’s ministry in Ephesus (19:1–20)

†

Apollos was known to the Corinthians as a strong preacher and was with Paul in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:12)

Apollos earlier left Ephesus for Corinth, where he preached for a period of time (18:24–28)

‡

§

While in Ephesus, Paul sent Timothy and a companion into Macedonia (19:21); Timothy is next mentioned leaving Corinth (or just possibly Macedonia) with Paul (20:3–4)

||

In a section already compressed, Luke omits conflicts with the Corinthian church, which would not serve his purpose.

Paul visits Troas (2 Cor 2:12)

This is implied as a normal part of the journey through Macedonia, the simplest route between Asia and Greece, 16:11; 20:5–6

#

Despite his delay (2 Cor 1:16–17; 2:1), Paul planned to visit Corinth (13:1) with traveling companions from other cities (9:4)

Paul visited Achaia (20:2–3); soon afterward he is mentioned with traveling companions from various cities (20:4)

**

Paul stayed in Achaia for three months (20:2–3)

After leaving Macedonia and Achaia (Rom 15:26), Paul presumably carried through his plan to visit Jerusalem (15:25)

Paul visited Jerusalem (21:17)

Paul was aware that Jerusalem might prove dangerous (Rom 15:31); his next letters are from Roman captivity (least disputed, Philippians; Philemon)

Paul was arrested in Jerusalem and detained by the Romans (22:24–23:30)

Paul apparently ended up in Rome, though not necessarily by the means he had originally planned (Phil 4:22; cf. Rom 15:23–24)

Paul used his Roman citizenship to have his case transferred to Rome (25:10–12)

^*He writes as if the Corinthian Christians knew of this journey.

^†Riesner, Early Period, 299, appears to think of Paul’s second letter as a surrogate visit, taking 2 Cor 2:1 figuratively in its context of abandoned travel plans. Given Luke’s summary of “two years” in a verse in Acts 19:10 (though adding afterward an anecdote), however, we should not count Luke’s silence against an interim journey noted only in 2 Corinthians.

^‡For a planned Macedonian visit, cf. also Phil 2:24; but unless this was written during an Ephesian imprisonment (which I doubt; cf. the likeliest sense of 4:22), it involves later plans (as also 1 Tim 1:3).

^§These may represent two comings of Timothy (based on the aorist indicative in 1 Cor 4:17 and the aorist subjunctive in 16:10), but if he writes from his own chronological standpoint (Timothy’s future arrival but past sending), Timothy might be part of the party bearing the letter (perhaps with others in 16:17–18). Paul plans to send Timothy to Macedonia in Phil 2:19, but unless he writes from an Ephesian imprisonment (I think 4:22 points more easily to a Roman one; even a Caesarean provenance is more likely for Philippians than an Ephesian one), this is later.

^||This was probably discussed either in his letter of reproof (2 Cor 2:4; 7:8), in which case the coming may have been a threat (cf. 1 Cor 4:18–21; 2 Cor 13:2) and was delayed so that Paul would not have to carry it out (2 Cor 2:1–4), or in an earlier letter, in which case the letter of reproof (2:4) temporarily substituted for his presence. Although some scholars defend the identification of 2 Cor 10–13 with this “tearful letter” (e.g., Watson, “Painful Letter”; Talbert, Corinthians, xix), most doubt it (Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 13–18; Bruce, Corinthians, 167–68; Sumney, Opponents, 126; Scott, Corinthians, 6; Amador, “Revisiting,” 95–98; Kreitzer, Corinthians, 23–25; Best, Corinthians, 2–3).

^#That section of Acts details Paul’s movements fairly specifically whereas omissions of detail are far more to be expected in Acts 20:1–3; see comment on Acts 17:10.

^**A Corinthian provenance for Romans is also likely because he has finished the collection (Rom 15:25–26; Riesner, Early Period, 233–34) and because of the status and perhaps high proportion of Roman names among his colleagues (Rom 16:22–23; cf. 1 Cor 1:14); though these arguments might also fit Philippi, Acts (if it is not circular to admit its evidence here) suggests a much briefer stay in Philippi (Acts 20:3, 6); cf. also discussion of Erastus (Rom 16:23) at Acts 19:22. The connection with Cenchreae in Rom 16:1 is most important; the ending of Romans is generally accepted today as part of the original letter (Hunter, Romans, 128–29; Lönnermark, “Frågan”; Donfried, “Note on Romans 16”; Stowers, Diatribe, 183; Letter Writing, 155; Drane, “Romans,” 223; esp. Gamble, Textual History; pace, earlier, e.g., Manson, “Letter”; Richards, “Chronological Relationship,” 30; McDonald, “Romans XVI”). Most today accept a Corinthian provenance for Romans (e.g., Bruce, Commentary, 405; Hemer, Acts in History, 188; Barrett, Acts, 947).

Other sources (Eph 6:20; Col 4:18; 2 Tim 1:16) also note Paul’s chains (Acts 26:29; 28:20), hardly a normal source of boasting, much less epideictic invention, in antiquity. Paul himself (or, in many others’ views, Pauline tradition) calls Aristarchus his “fellow captive” (Col 4:10). Another captivity letter also attests that Aristarchus, along with Luke, remained with Paul during his (probably Roman) detention (Phlm 24).

Such Pauline correlations with Acts render probable Luke’s other information about Paul; his accuracy in these cases must represent a fair and unbiased sampling, since he could not have known what sources would remain extant. That is, we cannot attribute Luke’s accuracy on these cases to coincidence or argue from silence that Luke was accurate on such a high proportion of points where we can check him, yet erred promiscuously wherever we cannot. If Luke has accurate information in greater detail in the “we” material, the traveling companion of Paul indicated in that material could also have supplied not only such detailed accounts but also earlier stories about Paul, reasonably accurate though less detailed. It is intrinsically likely that those who heard Paul in person knew some of his earlier stories; thus, for example, though Paul’s companions in starting the Corinthian church were Silas and Timothy (2 Cor 1:19), he expects the Corinthians to know about Barnabas (1 Cor 9:6), having apparently mentioned their work together. Luke is confirming widely circulated information (Luke 1:4), not writing a novel.

Scholars who question the reliability of Acts’ portrayal of Paul turn particularly to the more subjectively debatable and often debated questions of his theology. Although Luke does seem acquainted with Paul’s theology (see , , below, for a discussion of some Paulinisms in the speeches), some regard the differences as so striking as to be incompatible with a writer who genuinely knew Paul. The classic statement articulating this skepticism is Vielhauer’s:

To summarize: the author of Acts is in his Christology pre-Pauline, in his natural theology, concept of the law, and eschatology, post-Pauline. He presents no specifically Pauline idea. His “Paulinism” consists in his zeal for the worldwide Gentile mission and in his veneration for the greatest missionary to the Gentiles. The obvious material distance from Paul raises the question whether one may really consider Luke . . .  as the author of Acts.

As noted in below, Luke wrote the speeches mostly in his own style and emphasized the elements relevant to his audience, as other historians did. But Vielhauer’s point is not only the presence of Luke’s theology (which hardly anyone disputes) but what he argues is the absence of Paul’s.

Scholars have pointed to serious weaknesses in Vielhauer’s critique. Paul’s letters and Acts present not only different (yet not necessarily contradictory) emphases but even different genres; Vielhauer’s stark contrasts are not evenhanded comparisons but compare “apples and oranges.” Certainly, he exaggerates the non-Pauline character of Paul’s speeches in Acts. Vielhauer complains that the Paul of Acts offers few christological statements aside from Acts 13:13–43 and 26:22–23 and that these few match only pre-Pauline material in Paul’s letters (Rom 1:3–4; 1 Cor 15:3–4). But Paul’s letters do not tell us how much attention he gave to Christology in evangelistic sermons to Gentiles (possibly not much; cf. 1 Thess 1:9, probably from the primary period that more of Paul’s evangelistic sermons in Acts represent), and Christology is not an equally explicit focus of all his writings (nor does he emphasize the same christological categories in each—contrast, e.g., the “new Adam,” “wisdom,” and “Christ” categories). Further, contemporary literary criticism reminds us that if Paul includes “pre-Pauline” material, he does so because he agrees with it; Paul was not against the “pre-Pauline” theology that some identify in his own letters.

Much alleged incompatibility between Paul’s letters and Luke’s portrayal of Paul follows from such overstrict comparisons. For example, though the natural theology of Acts 17:24–27 differs from that in Paul’s writings, including his version of natural theology in Rom 1:19–23, they are not incompatible. They are no more different than one would expect for one writer summarizing another’s views or (less relevantly) even for the same philosopher (e.g., Seneca) in different passages at different times addressing different concerns in the wide spectrum of natural theology. This appears especially to be the case when one takes into account that Luke’s Paul and Romans 1 address different situations and that Paul’s own presentation varies from one passage to another (e.g., humanity’s “fall” through idolatry in Rom 1:21–25 vs. its Adamic fall in 5:12–21). Paul also addresses pagans’ knowledge of God elsewhere (e.g., 1 Cor 1:21). In both Acts 17 and Rom 1:18–25, Christian writers have adapted standard Hellenistic Jewish models that reflect especially Stoic influence (directly or indirectly)—for example, in Rom 1:19–20. Contrary to common assumptions that Acts 17 exaggerates Paul’s Stoic connections to fit the setting, I have found far more Stoic connections in 1 Corinthians (though admittedly partly because it is longer) than in Acts 17, and I believe that scholars who work with Greco-Roman moralists and philosophers will find even more echoes of these philosophers in the historical Paul than in Luke’s summary portrait of him. As Mikeal Parsons notes, “Given the strikingly different contexts, the similarities are more remarkable than the tensions.”

On some points Vielhauer finds legitimate contrasts, but he makes too much of them; granted, Paul did not author his own portrait in Luke-Acts, but neither is it one he would have denounced as misrepresenting him. On other points, Vielhauer has misread Paul on the basis of traditional theological assumptions. Vielhauer’s complaint that the Paul of Acts fails to replicate the epistolary Paul’s antithesis between law and Christ rests on a misreading of Paul, as contemporary Pauline scholarship has increasingly shown.

If Vielhauer charges that the Christology of Luke’s Paul is “adoptionist” and his soteriology neglects the cross, Luke’s emphasis differs primarily in what he omits. Paul’s letters do, in fact, emphasize the resurrection, though also noting the cross; also, there is not enough information to argue from silence that Luke’s Paul has only adoptionist Christology (as if this were Luke’s preferred christological construct), especially when Peter affirms Jesus’s deity in Acts’ first evangelistic speech (Acts 2:21, 38). Even the Paul of the letters could be construed as adoptionist if we had only the wording in Rom 1:3–4 (which, whether pre-Pauline or not, is certainly used by Paul). If Vielhauer complains that Luke focuses on history, removing the centrality of eschatology, this focus, too, is a matter of emphasis. Luke does not oppose eschatology (cf. Acts 1:6–7; 3:19–21; 10:42; in a Pauline speech, 17:31). Luke does not therefore contradict Paul here but selects features most germane to his own vision and needs. Paul’s view of history is, in fact, similar to Luke’s (Rom 9–11).

Peder Borgen, examining Vielhauer’s critiques, rightly concludes, “Even though there are differences at some points between the Pauline and the Lucan theologies, the theology of Luke must to a great extent be considered a further development of elements occurring in Paul’s letters. Luke hardly ever uses the letters, but he is partly dependent on traditions from and concerning Paul, and both Luke and Paul are partly dependent on the same early Christian traditions.” Luke’s portrayal of Paul is selective, but this selectivity no more rules out his being a companion of Paul than students’ selective memory and presentation of their teachers rules out their having been students of those teachers.

Haenchen adds his theological critique of Luke, complaining that “Luke was no longer able to grasp theologically, as Paul had, the legitimacy of the mission to the Gentiles free of the Torah.” Acts does present Paul as a good Jew, but this does not suggest that Luke’s Paul “compromises” with Jewish practices in ways that the epistolary Paul would not have (cf. Acts 16:3; 18:18; 21:26; Gal 2:3). For modern readers to suppose that because Paul differed with most Jews on some points, he must have renounced his Judaism is an anachronistic reading into which one can fit neither the Dead Sea Scrolls nor various other ancient Jewish protest literature.

The Paul of the letters no less than the Paul of Acts is a good Jew who simply refuses to impose uniquely Jewish customs on the Gentiles (1 Cor 9:21). Paul’s epistles that address the issue present him as faithful to his biblical heritage (e.g., Rom 3:21, 31; 9:31–32) and indicate that he remained within synagogues long enough to incur many beatings there (2 Cor 11:24). Genuine apostates such as Tiberius Alexander might have known Scripture but would hardly have quoted it as authoritative the way that Paul did; what Paul offered was not apostasy from Judaism (See comment on Acts 21:21; not everyone, however, would have agreed with Paul’s perspective) but a distinctive interpretation of Judaism in light of Jesus’s identity and work and hence his complete efficacy as savior. Paul was clearly ready to identify with his Jewish heritage not least for the sake of building evangelistic bridges to his community (1 Cor 9:20), was supremely concerned with the salvation of his people (Rom 9:1–3; 10:1; 11:14), and probably cited his heritage in preaching to the Jewish community, as in Acts (Rom 11:1; 2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:5–6). Likewise, rejection of Paul’s gospel by fellow Jews is not a Lukan construct but figures prominently in Rom 9–11 (esp. 11:7–17, 28–32) and elsewhere (e.g., Rom 15:31; 1 Thess 2:14–16, esp. 2:16).

The complaint that Luke’s Paul is less eschatological than Paul’s writings does rightly suggest Luke’s emphasis on realized eschatology but misses the diversity even in Paul’s letters; certainly, the eschatology of 2 Cor 4:16–5:10 is less end-time oriented than that in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 (Philippians includes some of both forms; compare Phil 1:21–24 with 3:20–21). That Paul should climax his speech in Athens with a future day of judgment (Acts 17:31) might seem almost too eschatological in view of Paul’s sensitivity to his audience!

It cannot be denied that Luke glorifies Paul’s rhetorical skills whereas Paul plays them down. But Paul’s abundant use of rhetorical devices, especially in the context of his denials (e.g., 1 Cor 2:1–3; 2 Cor 11:6), shows that he was able to play the Corinthians’ status game when he needed to, albeit by his own rules. (All this in spite of the fact that letters were not speeches and that rhetoricians frowned on excessive rhetorical devices in letters.) Even Paul’s probably earliest extant letter, 1 Thessalonians, is very carefully crafted.

Without using the explicit designation, Acts portrays Paul as an educated rhetor of some social station and familiar with philosophy, but so do Paul’s letters, again without making this explicit claim. Despite Haenchen’s contrast between a rhetor and a letter writer, some quite well-known ancient figures engaged in both pursuits (most prominently Cicero). Further, although Paul plays down his rhetorical ability (emphasizing God’s power perfected in his weakness; e.g., 1 Cor 1:18; 2:4–5; 2 Cor 13:4), Paul’s rhetorical weaknesses were mainly in delivery and apparently especially when judged by well-to-do Corinthians (since they are mentioned only in letters to them; 1 Cor 2:3; 2 Cor 10:10). One finds in Paul’s letters, in fact, far more rhetorical devices than would be possible in the brief summaries of Acts, devices such as climax or sorites (Rom 5:3–5; 8:30; 10:14–15), anaphora (1 Cor 1:12, 26; 15:42–44), antistrophe (1:27–28; 13:11), antithesis (Rom 5:12–21; 1 Cor 15:42–49; 2 Cor 6:8–10), irony (1 Cor 4:8; 2 Cor 11:8, 19–21; 12:13), peristasis catalogues (1 Cor 4:11–13; 2 Cor 4:8–11; 6:4–10; 11:23–29), and vice and virtue lists (Rom 1:29–31; 1 Cor 5:11; 6:9–10; Gal 5:19–23).

Some scholars find Luke’s claim of Paul’s Roman citizenship dubious in view of Paul’s failure to mention it in his letters. But in which of the extant letters would we expect Paul to have mentioned it? When Paul boasts about himself to the Corinthians, he boasts in matters of low status to invert their values (1 Cor 4:9–14; 2 Cor 11:23–12:10); when he compares himself favorably with other Jews, he emphasizes his Jewish credentials (2 Cor 11:22; Gal 1:13–14; Phil 3:5–6). Still, the epistles are compatible with the possibility of his citizenship (see, more fully, comment on Acts 16:37). The frequency of Roman names in Roman Corinth suggests that the church contained a fair number of Roman citizens, who, despite some complaints (notably about Paul’s artisan work and rhetorical skill), seem to have been comfortable enough associating with him from the start as a respected teacher. This observation suggests only a respectable status, not necessarily his citizenship, but it does comport well with Luke’s picture. Christians in another Roman colony, whose citizens were thus Roman citizens, apparently felt that in some way Paul was on trial for their future as well as his own (Phil 1:7). Most important, though Roman names do not necessarily indicate Roman citizenship, the name “Paulus” normally appears only for citizens (see comment on Acts 16:37).

On another point, Porter notes that the Paul of Acts, like that of the letters, argues from Jesus’s resurrection and displays “incredible complexity and argumentative skill. When the character of Paul as seen in Acts is compared with the Paul of history (so far as he can be known), and compared with the kind of person he must have been to have written and accomplished what he did, perhaps the lines of demarcation fade even further.” Despite the abridgment in Acts, Paul’s approach is compatible in both sources. This compatibility does not prove that Acts reports the same Paul as the epistles, but neither can the comparatively minor differences prove the opposite.

As Hengel and Schwemer point out, if Luke differed from Paul in some theological perspectives, this does not reduce the likelihood that he was Paul’s “travelling companion and eyewitness.” If Luke spent two years in Judea, allowing “contact with the bearers of the specific Palestinian Jesus tradition,” he probably synthesized what he learned from the various sources. He could still know and love Paul, even remaining more loyal to his thought than scholars often do to their teachers. In such a case, Luke would naturally emphasize the points he himself found most significant and useful in Paul’s teaching, given the genre of Acts (see above) and Paul’s positive role within Luke’s work. One grid for selection of Paul’s teachings might be their consonance with that of the Jerusalem apostles, since Luke writes not simply a biography of Paul but a history of the early Christian movement’s mission.

Not all of Paul’s companions shared his views on every point (note Barnabas in Gal 2:11–14); being a companion of Paul hardly makes one his “mouthpiece.” Disciples learned their teachers’ words and behavior and passed them on for posterity (sometimes adding that they disagreed but almost always reporting the teachings respectfully). Luke appears as a traveling companion, not a disciple, so he might not have memorized Paul’s teaching the way Jesus’s disciples probably sought to recall and rehearse his. No “disciples” of Paul are reported after Acts 9:25, but it is nevertheless likely that Paul, as a teacher, would have expected his associates to remember accurately his teachings (though different disciples naturally gravitated toward and reported different teachings on the basis of their individual predilections). If Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, we should expect him to report genuine information from his own perspective. But “his own perspective” constitutes a highly selective interpretive grid, one that differs from aspects of Paul that those steeped in his now-extant letters would emphasize.

As F. F. Bruce concludes, Luke’s Paul “is the real Paul viewed in retrospect by a friend and admirer, whose own religious experience was different from Paul’s, who expresses a distinctive theological outlook, who writes for another constituency than that for which Paul wrote his letters.”

↑ Back to top