I was listening to a friend give a talk on the book of Acts on the weekend. He had a number of interesting points, but the most interesting was from chapter 16. His point will help everyone who likes to answer questions about the historical basis for Christian faith. It has to do with the author of Acts, and why historians think that he was in contact with eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus.

Let’s take a look at the passage from Acts 16:1-10 (NASB), and notice how Luke is talking about what Paul and his helper Timothy are doing:

¹ Now Paul also came to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek,

² and he was well spoken of by the brothers and sisters who were in Lystra and Iconium.

³ Paul wanted this man to leave with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

⁴ Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the ordinances for them to follow which had been determined by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem.

⁵ So the churches were being strengthened in the faith, and were increasing in number daily.

⁶ They passed through the Phrygian and Galatian region, after being forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia;

⁷ and after they came to Mysia, they were trying to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them;

⁸ and passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas.

⁹ And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing and pleading with him, and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.”

¹⁰ When he had seen the vision, we immediately sought to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.

Now something interesting happens in the next few verses. Read them closely and see if you catch it:

¹¹ So after setting sail from Troas, we ran a straight course to Samothrace, and on the following day to Neapolis;

¹² and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia, a Roman colony; and we were spending some days in this city.

¹³ And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were thinking that there was a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled.

Did you catch it? The narrator switches from the third-person (“they”) to the first-person (“we”). And there are several more “we” passages in the book:

• Acts 16:10-17: The first “we passage” occurs during Paul’s second missionary journey, starting with the departure for Macedonia and ending after the events in Philippi.
• Acts 20:5-15: The “we” perspective resumes during Paul’s journey from Philippi to Miletus.
• Acts 21:1-18: The “we” narrative continues as Paul travels to Jerusalem.
• Acts 27:1-28:16: The final “we passage” covers Paul’s sea voyage to Rome.

Now, for the apologetic significance of this, let’s turn to William Lane Craig:

The most obvious explanation is that the author had joined Paul on his evangelistic tour of the Mediterranean cities. In chapter 21 he accompanies Paul back to Palestine and finally to Jerusalem. What this means is that the author of Luke-Acts was in fact in first hand contact with the eyewitnesses of Jesus’s life and ministry in Jerusalem.

[…]There is no avoiding the conclusion that Luke-Acts was written by a traveling companion of Paul who had the opportunity to interview eyewitnesses to Jesus’s life while in Jerusalem. Who were some of these eyewitnesses? Perhaps we can get some clue by subtracting from the Gospel of Luke everything found in the other gospels and seeing what is peculiar to Luke. What you discover is that many of Luke’s peculiar narratives are connected to women who followed Jesus: people like Joanna and Susanna, and significantly, Mary, Jesus’s mother.

So, the author of Acts was an eyewitness to the life of Paul, and he was able to interview eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus.

But the best part of all is testability. My friend who gave the talk on Acts mentioned that many details that Luke recorded can be tested by archaeologists. And what do the archaeologists find?

Dr. Craig says:

Was the author reliable in getting the facts straight? The book of Acts enables us to answer that question decisively. The book of Acts overlaps significantly with secular history of the ancient world, and the historical accuracy of Acts is indisputable. This has recently been demonstrated anew by Colin Hemer, a classical scholar who turned to New Testament studies, in his book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Hemer goes through the book of Acts with a fine-toothed comb, pulling out a wealth of historical knowledge, ranging from what would have been common knowledge down to details which only a local person would know. Again and again Luke’s accuracy is demonstrated: from the sailings of the Alexandrian corn fleet to the coastal terrain of the Mediterranean islands to the peculiar titles of local officials, Luke gets it right.

According to Professor Sherwin-White, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd.” The judgement of Sir William Ramsay, the world-famous archaeologist, still stands: “Luke is a historian of the first rank. This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.” Given Luke’s care and demonstrated reliability as well as his contact with eyewitnesses within the first generation after the events, this author is trustworthy.

I asked Grok about the accuracy of Luke, and Grok listed out the confirmed details, and concluded:

While archaeology cannot confirm every detail in Luke and Acts, numerous findings—such as inscriptions, structures, and artifacts—corroborate the historical, geographical, and cultural settings described in these texts. The accuracy of Luke’s references to officials, places, and events lends credibility to his accounts, though some specifics remain debated.

It’s important to understand that the gospels are not trying to make people feel good and have community. They’re trying to tell you who God is and what God really did in history. It’s a bit scary to think “oh my, all this really happened”, but it really did, and we have to come to terms with it and adjust our goals and priorities.