PAUL'S CONVERSION: Proof of Christianity

The following are videos from my class on Acts. (Sorry about the quality. You will need to turn the volume up to hear it. I will be working on this in the future.):

*PAUL'S ENCOUNTER WITH JESUS: Contradictions, Vision or Real?

*PAUL'S CONVERSION: Proof of Christianity

Resources for these two class sessions:

*Parallel Accounts of Paul's Conversion from Acts 9, 22 and 26....plus pertinent sections from his letters and additional cross references related to the accounts of Paul's conversion found in Acts. All Scripture quotations are from the New International Version (NIV). This is the handout used in the first video posted above ("Paul's Encounter With Jesus: Contradictions, Vision or Real?).

*Handout for "Paul's Conversion: Proof of Christianity

*Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of Paul by George Lyttleton. This is a condensed version (about 9 pages) of the original 90 page book. This is what my class is based on, as mentioned.

*Observations on the conversion and apostleship of St. Paul : in a letter to Gilbert West, Esq. The book originally published in 1754.

AN UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCE Between Acts and Archaeology

 I recently learned a new undesigned coincidence while watching a documentary. The documentary ("The Last Apostle"--included with Amazon Prime) features a modern-day William Ramsay named Dr. Mark Fairchild. Fairchild is professor of New Testament at Huntington University in Huntington, Indiana. And the documentary follows Fairchild on a two-week trip through Turkey, following the footsteps of Paul. Very interesting and worth the two hours.

Anyways, in Acts 13:4ff, Paul and Barnabas meet the proconsul Sergius Paulus on the island of Cyprus and he becomes a believer. After they leave Cyprus, they sail to Perga and from there make the 3-4 week trek by foot to Pisidian Antioch. Towards the end of the documentary, Fairchild begins to talk about this event as they head towards Pisidian Antioch. And he says (in a rather matter-of-fact way) that after the proconsul Sergio Paulus is converted, he asks Paul and Barnabas to go to Pisidian Antioch to bring the Gospel to his friends and relatives. 

I didn't remember reading that, so I turned to Acts 13 and found that Acts says nothing about such a conversation--not even a hint. So I'm a little confused at this point. (Maybe I missed something Fairchild said, as I was doing something else as I was watching.) At any rate, after Fairchild reaches Pisidian Antioch, he heads to the local museum where they are housing a recently discovered inscription bearing the name Sergius Paulus! So Fairchild concludes rather confidently that Sergius Paulus is from Pisidian Antioch and that the reason that Paul and Barnabas travel to Pisidian Antioch is because Sergius Paulus pleads with them to do so. This makes good sense in light of the recent find of this inscription of Sergius Paulus at Pisidian Antioch--yet Luke does not even hint at it in Acts.

This is an interesting way in which archaeology fills in information that Acts does not give us but which makes perfect sense in light of what Acts does tell us. This does not happen with fiction. This happens with reliable eyewitness accounts. 

Check out this excellent article from Bible Archaeology Report that not only has a photo of the Sergio Paulus inscription featured in Fairchild's documentary but also another found near Pisidian Antioch and others from Cyprus (where Paul met Sergius Paulus in Acts 13).

Also, here is the link to The Last Apostle documentary where I first learned about this.

To learn more about what an "undesigned coincidence" is, why it is such a powerful evidence of reliable eyewitness testimony and to see many more examples....see my article here.

Elymas the sorcerer is struck blind before Sergius Paulus. Painting by Raphael. Public domain.

WHY 1 TIMOTHY WAS WRITTEN NO LATER THAN 55 AD & WHY THAT MATTERS

Luke Was Almost Certainly the Amanuensis (Secretary) for the Pastoral Letters

While listening to a lecture by Ben Witherington, I noted that about the 16 minute mark, he makes the observation that a close study makes it nearly certain that Luke was the secretary behind the pastoral epistles. He notes that there are about 50 words that are used only in the pastoral letters and Luke-Acts and nowhere else in the New Testament. And that there are 7 or 8 distinct phrases that are shared only by the pastoral letters and Luke-Acts. He also notes that in 2 Timothy 4:11, Paul says: "Only Luke is with me." So the obvious conclusion is that Luke must be the secretary for 2 Timothy and also the other pastorals (as Paul always uses a secretary). The great New Testament scholar C. F. D. Moule put it this way: “Luke wrote all three Pastoral Epistles. But he wrote them during Paul’s lifetime, at Paul’s behest, and in part (but only in part), at Paul’s dictation.” [p. 434 of Moule's essay “The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal,” Bulletin of John Rylands Library 47 (1965)].

Resources for Luke's relationship to the pastoral letters:
*"Luke and the Pastoral Epistles" by Sean at the Initial Explorations blog
*"Luke and the Pastoral Epistles": Excursus 2 of The Birth of the New Testament by C.F.D. Moule
*For info on how Paul used a secretary for all of his letters, see my article: "Who Wrote the Pastoral Epistles?"


So How Can We Know That 1 Timothy Was Written No Later Than 55 AD?

With that in mind, let's consider 1 Timothy: Based on the vocabulary of 1 Timothy, it seems that Luke was Paul's scribe, which would make the "we" passages of Acts the most likely time of writing (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–8; 27:1–28:16). That makes three periods most likely for Luke to have been involved in the writing of 1 Timothy. (Note: The "we" passages in the book of Acts are passages where Luke writes in the first person plural, saying "we" did this or that.)

Which of the Three Points in Paul's Ministry When Luke Is With Him Fits 1 Timothy?
So let's take a look at the two earlier options, Acts 16:10-17 (c.49-52AD) or Acts 20:5-15 (c.52-55AD):

What about the first option, Acts 16:10-17 (c.49-52AD)?:

As 1 Timothy 1:3 reveals, Paul is probably writing from Macedonia (or at least he has been in Macedonia recently). In Acts 16:12, Luke is with Paul at Phillipi ("the leading city of that region of Macedonia"). Maps of Paul's 2nd missionary journey do not include Ephesus because the Holy Spirit kept them from entering Asia (Acts 16:6). But perhaps after they went to Troas, Paul sent Timothy on down to Ephesus in order to keep with their original intentions: “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing” (Acts 15:36).

Perhaps Paul caught wind of the trouble there: "As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith" (1 Timothy 1:3-4). And perhaps his response was to send Timothy at once since the Holy Spirit was leading them into Macedonia (Acts 16:9-10). This would make good sense of 1 Timothy 1:3, which is more literally: "Just as I urged you to remain in Ephesus--as I was departing for Macedonia--in order to instruct certain men not to teach heresy."

This seems like a possible option but highly unlikely, because (a) Timothy appears to be with Paul during Acts 16:10-17 and leaves for Macedonia after this period (Acts 17:14-15); (b) he is probably too new to Paul's ministry to be suddenly sent off by himself (joining Paul only in 16:1); (c) he is with Silas when he does leave Paul and appears to be with Silas (Paul's seasoned ministry partner) the whole time (though it is not certain, but see Acts 17:14-15; 18:5), which coincides with "(b)" and also would mean that any letters would have been written to both Silas and Timothy (or just to Silas).

The second option, Acts 20:5-15 (c.52-55AD), seems much more likely:

(a) Timothy is with Paul when Paul decides to go back through Macedonia himself (Acts 20:3-4). Again remember: 1 Timothy 1:3 reveals that Paul is probably writing from Macedonia (or at least he has been in Macedonia recently) (b) Paul makes a decision to avoid going back to Ephesus because of time constraints (Acts 20:16). (c) The elders of Ephesus have been appointed by this point in time, as Paul sends for them to meet him (perhaps as newly established elders; see Acts 20:17). (d) This is a period of time when Timothy is being sent off on his own to help with established churches (e.g., 1 Corinthians 16:10-11, which we will see has yet further implications here).

What about the usually accepted third option?:

Acts 27:1-28:16 has long been the time period during which 1 Timothy has been placed--the early 60s. But this does not make good sense. Here are some serious problems with that view:

(1) Timothy begins his ministry with Paul in Acts 16:1 on Paul's Second Missionary Journey (c.49 AD). So if 1 Timothy was written in the 60s, why would Paul tell him: "Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young,...." (4:12)? Would Timothy still be thought of as young 12 to 15 years later? By the early 60s he would surely be at least somewhere close to 30 years old (which is how old Jesus was when he began his ministry, see Luke 3:23).

On the contrary, such a statement clearly fits the context of Timothy's early years as Paul's ministry partner. As John A.T. Robinson notes about 1 Corinthians (written c.54 AD): "Earlier that same year he had felt it necessary to say to the Corinthians: 'If Timothy comes, see that you put him at his ease; for it is the Lord's work that he is engaged upon, as I am myself; so no one must slight him. Send him happily on his way to join me, since I am waiting for him with our friends' (1 Cor. 16.10f). Now he writes to his protege in very similar terms: 'Let no one slight you because you are young, but make yourself an example to believers in speech and behaviour, in love, fidelity, and purity. Until I arrive...make these matters your business and  your absorbing interest, so that our progress may be plain to all' (1 Tim. 4.11-15). It is not difficult to believe that these words were written six months apart." (emphases mine; p.83, J.A.T. Robinson. Redating the New Testament. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1976, 2000) [Note: The word "slight" in these passages is a translation of two different Greek words that both have very similar meaning.]

(2) Secondly, why would anyone be looking down on Timothy in the early 60s? By then, he would be a very well established and well known part of Paul's team. This would be true not only because he would have been part of that team for over a decade. Even more than that he is mentioned in the letter to the Hebrews, to Philemon and 13 times in Paul's letters to the churches (that is in all but the letters to the Galatians and Ephesians). And we know that at least some of these letters were circulated among the churches at Paul's request (and probably all of Paul's letters to the churches). Colossians 4:16 is explicit about that. Galatians is not written to one church but to the churches of Galatia (1:2). And Ephesians is considered by many scholars to have been intended to be a circular letter. And as Paul's letters were considered to be Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16), it is more than likely that they were copied and circulated. And this would surely be true by the early 60s (which is very likely when 2 Peter was written), as Peter speaks of "all his [Paul's] letters" as if his readers would understand.

(3) Furthermore, he would be personally well known to the church at Ephesus, as he was with Paul on Paul's second missionary journey when they first went to Ephesus and spent more than two years there (see Acts 19:1-10).

(4) More than that, why would Paul be laying down the ground rules for selecting elders so late in the game--particularly at Ephesus? Elders had been selected at Ephesus in the early 50s, as can be seen by the fact that Paul meets with them in Acts 20:16-38.  

(5) After more than a decade of ministry with Paul, Timothy would certainly be well acquainted with how elders were to be selected and would hardly need for Paul to write a letter to him to explain it.

(6) Those who hold to this view have to imagine that Paul was released from prison and then went on yet another missionary journey for which we have no record. It does seem quite possible that Paul did make yet another journey; but the point is that it is completely hypothetical and we have nothing at all to indicate that it would have included Timothy at Ephesus or Paul in Macedonia.

SO WHY DOES ALL OF THIS MATTER?

The reason this is important is because Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke in 1 Timothy 5:18 and calls it "Scripture," which means two things: (1) it was already written down (as γραφή the Greek word for "Scripture" literally means "written") and (2) it was already considered to be an authoritative part of the Biblical Canon (as γραφή is always used as a technical term for the canon of Scripture). 

And so....

(1) This establishes a date for the composition of Luke no later than 55 AD, putting it much closer to the recorded events and available eyewitnesses (cf. Luke 1:1-4).
(2) Since it is nearly universally agreed that the Gospel of Mark was one of the sources that Luke mentions in his prologue (1:1-4), this pushes the date of Mark to some time before 54 AD. And if Matthew is one of the other sources Luke mentions when he says: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us...." (1:1), then the same applies to Matthew.
(3) It clearly demonstrates that New Testament books were already beginning to be recognized as "Scripture" and therefore as part of the canon no later than 55 AD (contrary to the prevailing idea that they did not have the status of Scripture until much later). Or in the case of the Gospel of Luke, it immediately had the status of Scripture (which I will show in more detail in an upcoming article on the canon was in fact the case).

Additionally, the beautiful way that all of these facts from 1 Timothy, Acts and Paul's letters all fit-together-like-a-hand-in-a-glove join the myriad of facts that:

(4) Establish the authenticity of 1 Timothy as one of Paul's letters.
(5) Establish the historicity of Acts.

As John A.T. Robinson concludes after carefully comparing and merging the historical data from Acts and the Pauline letters in order to arrive at accurate dates for their composition: "The working assumption we made to trust Acts until proved otherwise has been very substantially vindicated. There is practically nothing in Luke's account that clashes with the Pauline evidence, and in the latter half of Acts the correspondences are remarkably close. Even in the speeches attributed to Paul, and especially those at which Luke can be presumed to have been present (Acts 20 and 22-25), there are parallels to suggest that they are far from purely free compositions. This conclusion must also be relevant as we turn now to consider how close in date Acts stands to the evets which it records."
p.85, J.A.T. Robinson. Redating the New Testament. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1976, 2000

Additionally, (6) this fits neatly with other evidence that I have been collecting over the last several years related to Paul's use of the Gospel of Luke in his letters.

Click here for a PDF version of this article.