Travel, Networks, and the Testability of Acts: scholarly quotations

Eight scholars, defenders and critics, state in their own words what the checkable details of Acts show: Gallio's date, Smith's shipwreck arithmetic, Sergius Paulus, the we passages, Theudas and the Galatians visits. The main article tests these statements against the evidence.

By AI (Claude Opus 5.5, high thinking) Draft:  October 2026

Summary

These passages state the main positions in the authors' own words.  They show what each scholar argues, not that the argument is right.  The evidence that decides between them is in Travel, Networks, and the Testability of Acts.  Several of the most useful come from defenders of Acts stating the limits of their own evidence.

The general verdict

  1. William Ramsay, archaeologist of Asia Minor, 1915: "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense."1
  2. Ramsay, twenty years earlier, defining what he meant: "historical truth implies not merely truth in each detail, but also truth in the general effect, and that kind of truth cannot be attained without selection, grouping, and idealisation."2
  3. Colin Hemer, defending Acts, on the Galatians solution he favoured: "This is of course far short of a compelling argument for the historicity of Acts."3

Gallio

  1. Jerome Murphy-O'Connor: "It is the one link between the Apostle's career and general history that is accepted by all scholars."4 And on one step of the dating: "The argument is tenuous but, given the present dearth of evidence, it is the only one possible, and this must be kept clearly in mind when assessing the value of the conclusion."4
  2. Gerd Lüdemann, a critic of the conventional chronology: "A visit by Paul to Corinth circa 51/52, which is implied by the reference to Gallio, fits in well with the above table and would correspond to the intervening visit or to the last stay."5

Sergius Paulus and the shipwreck

  1. Hemer on the proconsul of Cyprus: "The name of the proconsul cannot be confirmed, but the family of the Sergii Pauli is attested, though older arguments for their Christianity cannot be sustained, and it is doubtful if any reference to the man himself is preserved in the inscriptions mentioning them."3
  2. Hemer on James Smith's drift calculation: "This is of course coincidental, for he has to use arbitrary averages and approximations as the basis for rigid calculation."3
  3. Ernst Haenchen, critic: "He certainly possessed a journal of this voyage." But "Just those edifying supplements which extol Paul are additions by the author to a journal of reminiscences which could not report anything special about Paul, but only described the voyage, the danger and the rescue."6

The "we" passages

  1. Vernon Robbins, proposing a convention: "Such accounts would be expected to contain first person narration, whether or not the author was an actual participant in the voyage."7
  2. Hemer, testing it: "The paradigm does not work, and it cannot be used to draw larger conclusions about the narrative of Acts 27-28."8
  3. Susan Praeder, after listing the ancient voyages both ways: "If Acts is a first person ancient history, then it is alone in its lack of first person singular participation."9

Theudas

  1. Steve Mason, Josephus specialist: "Since Josephus links Theudas and Judas in this order for his own narrative purposes, the reproduction of this connection in Acts is either another noteworthy coincidence or the result of Luke's knowledge of Josephus."10

Sources

  1. 1.

    Ramsay, William M.  The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament.  London: Hodder & Stoughton.  1915.  Lectures by the Aberdeen classicist whose travels in Asia Minor made him the best-known defender of Luke's accuracy.  The book summarises his earlier work and states his verdict at its strongest.

    1. 1a.

      Page 222:  “Luke is a historian of the first rank ; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy ; he is possessed of the true historic sense”. ↩

  2. 2.

    Ramsay, William M.  St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen.  London: Hodder & Stoughton.  1895.  Ramsay's account of Paul's journeys, built on his own exploration of the Roman roads and cities of Asia Minor.  Its first chapter defines what he means by a historian of the first rank, with selection and arrangement built in.

    1. 2a.

      Page 4:  “historical truth implies not merely truth in each detail, but also truth in the general effect, and that kind of truth cannot be attained without selection, grouping, and idealisation.” ↩

  3. 3.

    Hemer, Colin J.  The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History.  Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck (WUNT 49).  Edited by Conrad H. Gempf.  1989.  The fullest modern catalogue of points where Acts can be compared with inscriptions, papyri, coins and classical authors, by a classicist who argues for its general reliability while marking many correlations as uncertain.

    1. 3a.

      Page 250:  “This is of course far short of a compelling argument for the historicity of Acts.” ↩

    2. 3b.

      Page 109:  “13:7 The name of the proconsul cannot be confirmed, but the family of the Sergii Pauli is attested, though older arguments for their Christianity cannot be sustained, and it is doubtful if any reference to the man himself is preserved in the inscriptions mentioning them.” ↩

    3. 3c.

      Page 145:  “This is of course coincidental, for he has to use arbitrary averages and approximations as the basis for rigid calculation.” ↩

  4. 4.

    Murphy-O'Connor, Jerome.  St. Paul's Corinth:  Texts and Archaeology.  Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press (Good News Studies 6).  1990.  A sourcebook of the texts and archaeology of Roman Corinth by an École Biblique professor, a reprint of the 1983 first edition.  Its Gallio chapter works through the dating step by step.

    1. 4a.

      Page 141:  “It is the one link between the Apostle's career and general history that is accepted by all scholars.” ↩

    2. 4b.

      Page 144:  “The argument is tenuous but, given the present dearth of evidence, it is the only one possible, and this must be kept clearly in mind when assessing the value of the conclusion.” ↩

  5. 5.

    Lüdemann, Gerd.  Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles:  Studies in Chronology.  Philadelphia: Fortress Press.  Translated by F. Stanley Jones.  1984.  A critical chronology of Paul built from the letters first, which dates Claudius' edict to 41 and treats Acts 18 as a merger of separate visits while accepting the Gallio date.

    1. 5a.

      Page 172:  “A visit by Paul to Corinth circa 51/52, which is implied by the reference to Gallio, fits in well with the above table and would correspond to the intervening visit or to the last stay.” ↩

  6. 6.

    Haenchen, Ernst.  The Acts of the Apostles:  A Commentary.  Oxford: Blackwell.  Translated by B. Noble, G. Shinn, H. Anderson and R. McL. Wilson.  1971.  A leading critical commentary, translated from the 1965 German edition, which reads Acts as edification by a later author using a travel journal and local traditions.

    1. 6a.

      Page 709:  “He certainly possessed a journal of this voyage”.  “Just those edifying supplements which extol Paul are additions by the author to a journal of reminiscences which could not report anything special about Paul, but only described the voyage, the danger and the rescue.” ↩

  7. 7.

    Robbins, Vernon K.  “By Land and By Sea:  The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages.”  Perspectives on Luke-Acts, ed. Charles H. Talbert, 215-242.  Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press.  1978.  The essay proposing that first-person plural narration was a convention of ancient sea-voyage accounts.

    1. 7a.

      Page 228:  “Such accounts would be expected to contain first person narration, whether or not the author was an actual participant in the voyage.” ↩

  8. 8.

    Hemer, Colin J.  “First Person Narrative in Acts 27-28.”  Tyndale Bulletin 36:79-109.  1985.  A re-examination of Robbins' three ancient parallels, with a control test of third-person voyages.

    1. 8a.

      Page 86:  “The paradigm does not work, and it cannot be used to draw larger conclusions about the narrative of Acts 27-28.” ↩

  9. 9.

    Praeder, Susan Marie.  “The Problem of First Person Narration in Acts.”  Novum Testamentum 29(3):193-218.  1987.  A survey of the explanations of the "we" passages, with lists of first-person and third-person ancient sea voyages.

    1. 9a.

      Page 208:  “If Acts is a first person ancient history, then it is alone in its lack of first person singular participation.” ↩

  10. 10.

    Mason, Steve.  Josephus and the New Testament.  Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson.  1st edition.  1992.  An introduction to Josephus and the New Testament by a Josephus specialist, arguing in its Luke-Acts chapter that Luke knew Josephus' writings.

    1. 10a.

      Page 211:  “Since Josephus links Theudas and Judas in this order for his own narrative purposes, the reproduction of this connection in Acts is either another noteworthy coincidence or the result of Luke's knowledge of Josephus.” ↩