Reading through the gospels and Acts this week conjured up fresh thoughts of dependability. We cannot afford to casually read through this ancient document and dismiss the people specifically named by the authors. This certainly does not discount the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which I believe is present in every Biblical document. But, I am greatly impressed by the historical veracity of the text. 

Each time an author mentions the personal name of someone, they are offering a further challenge to the reader to test the truthfulness of this account. Many of these names are completely unknown to us 2,000 years removed, but would likely have been known to the original audience. I’m not sure who Alexander and Rufus were (Mk. 15:21), but the original readers probably knew. I’m not sure who the teachers in Antioch were, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen (Ac. 13:1), but the first-century readers of Acts probably knew… 

Yet, here is part of the power in these names. Even if the reader did not know the person, they could track them down and personally interview them. This, of course, is precisely what Luke said he did (see Lk. 1:1-4). Modern writers also recognize this, “[Luke] could not make entirely unsubstantiated claims, of course, since many of the people he was writing about were still alive and his story could be checked out” (Albert A. Bell Jr., Exploring the New Testament World, p. 83). It is bold indeed, to start actually naming names of real and authentic people. Especially if what Luke (or Mark, or Matthew, or even Paul) said about them is not true. 

Take Luke’s two-volume work for example. Luke places the work of Jesus Christ securely in the realm of human history in his first volume (see Lk. 1:5; 2:1-2; 3:1-2). He then follows that volume with the ongoing work of the disciples of Jesus, and again places it firmly in history (see Ac. 11:28). We should appreciate the historicity of the gospel message. The evidence for the historical authenticity of this Book is overwhelming.