The historicity of Acts is brought into sharper focus when it is realized that Titus was

Timothy, and Crispus was Sosthenes, etc.. The following paragraphs discuss how our

new understanding of re-naming in the early church changes our view of the historical

accuracy of Acts.

A strong case can be made that the author of Acts was the Lucius of Rom 16:21, and

probably also the Lucius of Acts 13:1. If Acts was indeed written by an eye-witness,

its basic reliability becomes rather likely.

The greatest challenge to the historical reliability of Acts comes from the contradiction

with Josephus over the chronology of Theudas. However, we have shown that it is not

at all unlikely that there were two messianic figures called "Theudas", for it would be a

very appropriate name for them to take.

Acts 4:36-37 mentions that Joseph was called Barnabas and that he sold a field and

laid the money at the apostle's feet. This now has the ring of truth about it, in view of

our conclusion that benefactors of the church often received new names.

We have seen that the description of the circumcision of Titus-Timothy in Acts 16:1-3

fits very well with Paul's discussion of Titus in Gal 2:1-5. The Galatians passage

seems to confirm the accuracy of the Acts passage. It should be remembered that the

Titus-Timothy hypothesis is not dependent on any particular view of the historicity of

Acts, but is rather supported by arguments from the Corinthian letters alone.

The Titus-Timothy hypotheses and the chronology that results from it and the Crispus-Sosthenes hypothesis show that Galatians was written to south Galatia after Paul had circumcised Timothy. This explains the background to Galatians in a way that is in good agreement with Acts.

Acts 19:22 says that Timothy travelled from Ephesus to Macedonia with Erastus, and

implies that he did not return to Paul before Paul himself went to Macedonia. This is

confirmed by Paul's letters. From 1 Corinthians alone it is evident that Timothy

travelled from Ephesus to Corinth via Macedonia (this is commonly agreed). From 2

Corinthians we know that Titus-Timothy did not return to Paul in Ephesus, or even in

the Troad, but met him in Macedonia. Luke's failure to mention the leg the journey that

took Timothy and Erastus to Corinth is explicable as a protective measure. Acts 19:22

is further confirmed by 2 Cor 12:18, which confirms that Titus-Timothy travelled with

one other person. That person is anonymous in 2 Cor 12:18 but two considerations

make it probable that he was Erastus. Firstly, it has been argued that his anonymity

was because he was involved in the controversial collection project. Acts 19:22 and

the profession of Erastus (Rom 16:23) make it likely that Erastus was on collection

business. Secondly, Paul says in 2 Cor 12:18 that Titus was not a burden to the

Corinthians, but conspicuously does not say that the 'brother' was not a burden. This

is explicable if the brother (like Erastus) was not a burden.

The Titus-Timothy hypothesis shows that Luke did not omit to mention Titus, a

prominent co-worker of Paul.

The Titus-Timothy hypothesis shows that the author of the Pastoral Epistles probably

had rather little knowledge of history (otherwise he would not have thought that Titus

and Timothy were different people). The historical references in the Pastoral Epistles

are hard to reconcile with Acts. Our conclusion that the PE were probably unhistorical

therefore removes an obstacle to the accuracy of Acts.

The journey of Titus-Timothy to deliver the collection (Acts 20:4) is entirely to be

expected, given his enthusiasm for the project (2 Cor 8).

The Titus-Timothy hypothesis, if correct, tends to support the south Galatia

hypothesis. This, in turn, would mean that Act is not guilty of omitting to describe the

creation of churches in north Galatia.

If Crispus was Sosthenes, the Sosthenes of Acts 18:17 was one and the same as the

Sosthenes of 1 Cor 1:1 and Acts correctly records his name.

From Acts we learn that Crispus-Sosthenes was a high status convert who influenced

many others to come to faith. This fits well with 1 Cor 1:1, where Paul adds

Sosthenes's authority to his own.

The Crispus-Sosthenes hypothesis shows that Acts 18 is a literary unity and that the

beating of Sosthenes took place before Sosthenes moved to Ephesus, and therefore

before 1 Corinthians was written. This rules out the Chronologies of Leudemann and

others that rely on locating Acts 18:12-17 in a later visit by Paul to Corinth.

There is an internal consistency Acts 18:7-18, in that these events are most likely to

have occurred at a time of food shortages and the time of Gallio was such a time.

In Acts the firstfruits of the church of Corinth was Titius Justus. Paul tells us the

household of Stephanas was the firstfruits. If we are correct to equate Stephanas with

Titius Justus, then an aspect of the Acts account is confirmed by Paul: Acts tells us

that Titus Justus provided his house for Paul's use, and we have shown that the name

"Stephanas" is very suitable for such a benefactor.

We have seen that the Jews in Paul's churches are never placed by Acts in the city in

which they remained. This removes any objection to equating the Jason of Rom 16:21

with the Jason of Acts 17:5-9. We can therefore assume that Acts correctly names

Jason.

The famine visit is often dismissed by critical scholars. However, the name "Agabus"

(Locust) is a very suitable nick-name for someone who predicted famine and this

argues for the historicity of Luke's account. The name is Hebrew and therefore not one

that Luke would have made up.

Reading between the lines in Acts 12 we can tentatively conclude that Peter fled to

Antioch after escaping from prison. This visit of Peter to Antioch is confirmed by Gal

2:12. See here.

We have argued that Mary Magdalene was given her title "Magdalene" (fortress) by the

Jesus movement, and was not from a place called Magdala (even if there was such a

place). If this is correct, then Luke's information that Mary Magdalene was a

benefactor is probably correct since benefactors were often given new names, perhaps

for their protection.

Conclusion

The study of names and new name giving creates no new problems for Acts, but

rather confirms the accuracy of Acts on a number of important details. Many critics

still assume (usually without argument) that Acts is a "creative fiction", or unreliable

"secondary source", but their assumption becomes untenable when the historical

details in Acts about Paul's associates are compared with the information in the

undisputed letters, especially in the light of our findings on the phenomenon of

re-naming.

Back to index page