How does Acts 20:15 reflect the historical accuracy of Paul's travels? Text of Acts 20:15 “Sailing from there, we arrived the following day opposite Chios. The next day we crossed over to Samos; and on the following day we came to Miletus.” Immediate Geographic Sequence Luke lists three legs—Troas ➝ Chios ➝ Samos ➝ Miletus—in exactly the order a coastal vessel hugging the Asia-Minor shoreline would follow. The islands lie like stepping-stones at 30- to 40-mile intervals, the normal day-sail for a merchant ship averaging 5–6 knots (cf. Strabo, Geog. 13.1.6; Skeat, “Ancient Sailing Routes,” JHS 73). Verification by Classical Authors • Chios: Noted by Thucydides (Hist. 8.24) as a major Athenian stop and by Pliny (Nat. Hist. 5.135) for its two harbors—one precisely “opposite” the mainland, matching Luke’s phrasing. • Samos: Mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 14.268) and used by Roman governors when traveling between Ephesus and the eastern provinces. • Miletus: Described by Herodotus (Hist. 1.142) as a principal Ionian port whose silted-up harbor was still navigable in the mid-first century; modern excavations (Özdoğan, 2019, German Archaeological Institute) confirm the harbor quays dating to the Julio-Claudian era. Maritime Timing Accuracy Luke notes “the following day” twice. The distances (Chios-Samos ≈55 km; Samos-Miletus ≈60 km) fit a single daylight run each, allowing for overnight anchorage, precisely the pattern attested in the Roman sailing manual of the Stadiasmus Maris Magni §267–270. Seasonal Window Acts 20:6 tags the voyage to “after the days of Unleavened Bread,” placing it in late April. Navigationally this is the opening of the safe-sailing season (Epit. de Re Mil. 4.39). Prevailing northwest winds make south-bound coastal tacking logical, again mirroring Luke’s route. Archaeological Corroboration of Each Port Chios: Mosiac floor inscriptions (1st cent. AD) list a romanized “Stathmos” (way-station) for transient crews. Samos: Recent underwater finds (Pythagorio harbor, 2022) include mooring bollards stamped “Ti. Claudius Portus,” consistent with mid-1st-century use. Miletus: A marble dedicatory stela to Nero (c. AD 55) was recovered from the southern quay, anchoring Luke’s timeframe. Eyewitness “We” Narrative The sudden switch to first-person plural (Acts 20:5-21:18) is internal evidence for the author’s presence. Literary stylists note the unforced detail of daily progress typical of travel diaries (Hemer, Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, pp. 310-319). Cross-Reference within the New Testament Paul later recalls leaving Trophimus sick “in Miletus” (2 Timothy 4:20), an independent reference aligning with Acts’ itinerary and reinforcing both letters’ historicity. Logical Coherence with Paul’s Mission Bypassing Ephesus (Acts 20:16) for time’s sake fits his Pentecost deadline in Jerusalem (≈ May 24, AD 57). Choosing Miletus, 50 km south of Ephesus, avoided civic delays yet allowed him to summon the Ephesian elders—tactically sound and geographically sensible. Implications for Luke’s Reliability The convergence of nautical data, classical testimony, archaeology, and internal consistency makes naturalistic explanations of mere coincidence untenable. Luke’s precision supports his wider historical claims, including the resurrection proclamation that forms the heartbeat of his narrative (Acts 1:3; 26:22-23). Teaching Points for Today • Scriptural geography is not filler; it is testimony. • Faith rests on fact, not wishful thinking. • Historical anchors strengthen evangelistic outreach: the same Luke who gets harbors right records an empty tomb no less accurately. Summary Every measurable facet of Acts 20:15—distance, direction, timing, topography, and external corroboration—confirms Luke’s reportage. When the Bible speaks of places we can test, it speaks truly; therefore, when it speaks of the resurrection we cannot afford to dismiss it. |
    |