A complete discussion of NT chronology will not be attempted here. Instead we will

present the new chronological clues that are provided by the hypotheses of new-name

giving in the early church. It will be shown that these new chronological indicators

generally support a traditional Acts-based chronology.

It is often thought that Acts makes a chronological error by placing the career of Theudas

before that of Judas the Galilean, in contradiction to Josephus. However, I have argued that

it would not be a big coincidence for there to have been two Theudases. It is by no means

certain that Luke made a mistake here.

Somewhat speculatively, we have seen that Joseph Barsabbas may have been called by

Jesus during the Sabbath year of A.D. 27/28, and may have been named "Barsabbas"

because of his observance of the Sabbath year requirements.

The name Agabus (meaning "Locust") was probably a nickname that was given to this

prophet because of his predictions of famine. The name is Hebrew so is unlikely to have

been an invention of Luke. This tends to confirm that Agabus did indeed predict (or report

on) famine, so there is probably historicity in Acts 11:27-30.

It is argued here that Peter fled to Antioch with John-Mark after escaping from prison. This

confirms that the famine visit belongs at Acts 12:25, after the death of Herod. It also shows

that the men from James of Gal 2:12 can be neatly equated with the men from Judea of

Acts 15:1, and this supports the equation of the Gal 2:1-10 visit with the Acts 15 visit.

I have argued at length that Timothy cannot have been a native of Lystra, but was rather

none other than Titus renamed. This raises the questions of why Titus traveled from

Jerusalem (Gal 2:1-3) to south Galatia (Acts 16:1-3), and why he was named "Timothy". I

have argued that the apostles asked Paul to "remember the poor" (Gal 2:10) and that he

responded by sending Titus immediately to south Galatia to organize a collection. This

confirms that Gal 2:1-10 = Acts 15. It also shows that the collection from Galatia that Paul

mentions in 1 Cor 16:1-3 occurred just before the "second missionary journey".

Furthermore, it shows that in 1 Cor 16:1-3 Paul is referring to the churches of south

Galatia, and this supports the view that Galatians was addressed to this region.

The south Galatia hypothesis and the view that Galatians was written after the circumcision of Timothy are confirmed by the sense that they make of the background of Galatians.

There are some indications that the Gal 2:10 (Acts 15) visit took place during the Sabbath

year:

a) During the Sabbath year of A.D. 48-49 there would have been food shortages because of

the prohibition against agricultural activity and because the recent (or ongoing) famine

would have prevented the provisioning of food. The shortages at this time explain why the

apostles requested that Paul and Barnabas "remember the poor" (Gal 2:10) and why Titus

was immediately sent to south Galatia to organize a collection.

b) The "fourteen years" of Gal 2:1 may recall the Sabbath year cycle (14 = 2X7). (similarly

2 Cor 12:2)

c) Judas Barsabbas, accompanied Paul and Barnabas to Antioch following their visit to

Jerusalem. I have proposed that, along with his brother Joseph, he was named

"Barsabbas" (son of the Sabbath) because of his observance of the Sabbath year. His

availability to travel may indicate that it was a Sabbath year.

Knox and his followers have suggested that Paul's collection from Macedonia and Achaia

was his response to the request of the apostles that he "remember the poor" (Gal 2:10).

They therefore place the Gal 2:1-10 visit just before the third missionary journey. This

would make the time interval between the request and the delivery of the collection about 3

or 4 years. If Gal 2:1-10 were just before the second missionary journey then the interval

would have been 7-8 years, which they feel is too long. However, I have suggested that

even 3-4 years is too long, given Paul's declared eagerness (Gal 2:10). If, as I suggest,

Paul sent Titus to organize a collection from Galatia immediately before the second

missionary journey, the Knox's argument is reversed. That is to say, the presence of

Titus-Timothy is Lystra at Acts 16:1-3 makes perfect sense if the Gal 2:1-10 visit occurred

just beforehand.

The Titus-Timothy hypothesis also supports the view that 2 Corinthians was written later in

the same year as 1 Corinthians. Timothy's visit to Corinth that is anticipated in 1

Corinthians is the same as Titus's visit to Corinth that Paul looks back on in 2 Corinthians.

The movements of Paul and Titus-Timothy are illustrated here. It is clear from 1 Corinthians

that Timothy travelled from Ephesus to Corinth via Macedonia, and

2 Cor 12:18 tells us that he (Titus) travelled with one other 'brother'. Also, from 2 Cor

2:12-13; 7:5-16 we know that Titus did not manage to return to Paul before his arrival in

Ephesus. These data are in good agreement with Acts, which records Titus-Timothy's

journey from Ephesus to Macedonia:

"So he sent two of his helpers, Timothy and Erastus, to Macedonia, while he himself

stayed for sometime longer in Asia." (Acts 19:22)

Thus, the itinerary of Acts 19:22 is confirmed by the Titus-Timothy hypothesis.

Furthermore, with the Titus-Timothy hypothesis it can be shown that the travel plan of 2

Cor 1:15-16 was made earlier than the travel plan of 1 Cor 16:3-8. This shows that Paul's

original plan had been definitely to go to Jerusalem. This is in agreement with Acts:

"Paul resolved in the Spirit to go through Macedonia and Achaia, and then to go on to

Jerusalem." (Acts 19:21)

I have argued in print that Sosthenes was Crispus renamed. Sosthenes was in Ephesus

by the time 1 Corinthians was written, so the beating of Sosthenes occurred where Luke

places it, during Paul's first visit to Corinth. Acts 18 is therefore not a composite of

accounts of more than one visit by Paul to Corinth. Leudemann and others incorrectly

assume that Crispus and Sosthenes were different synagogue rulers and that Acts 18:17

therefore belonged to a different period from Acts 18:8. The Crispus-Sosthenes hypothesis

removes this argument for partitioning Acts 18. Furthermore, the beating of Sosthenes,

who had diverted his benefactions from the synagogue to the church, is most likely to have

happened during a time of food shortages and this confirms it occurred in A.D.51, which

confirms the Gallio datum.

Finally, Acts 20:25,38 suggest that Paul did not return to Ephesus, but 1 Tim 1:3 suggest

that he did. The Titus-Timothy hypothesis shows that the Pastoral Epistles are unreliable

and so favors Acts.

Summary

The evidence on names and identities presented in these web pages supports the

reliability of Acts in chronology and other matters.

The conclusions arrived at above are consistent with the following timeline:

27/28 Beginning of Jesus' ministry

30 Crucifixion

34 Conversion of Paul

37 Paul's flight from Damascus and first visit to Jerusalem

44 Peter's escape from prison and flight to Antioch with John-Mark

~46 Visit of Agabus and others to Antioch

~46 Famine visit of Paul, Barnabas and John-Mark to Jerusalem.

~46/47 First missionary Journey

48 Paul, Barnabas and Titus visit Jerusalem (Gal 2:1-10 = Acts 15)

Titus is sent directly to south Galatia.

~50 Paul arrives in Corinth

51 Gallio incident

~55 Spring. Paul writes 1 Cor

~55 Late summer. Paul writes 2 Cor

~56 Spring Paul writes Romans.

Back to index page