Acts 13:7,12: If Sergius Paulus was a real proconsul who converted, why is there scant archeological or historical evidence to confirm this event?

1. Scriptural Testimony of Sergius Paulus

Acts 13:7 introduces Sergius Paulus as “an intelligent man” who called for Barnabas and Saul “to hear the word of God.” Shortly after, Acts 13:12 states, “When the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed, for he was astonished at the teaching about the Lord.” These verses portray Sergius Paulus not only as the Roman proconsul of Cyprus but also as a figure who responded positively to the gospel message.

2. Historical Context of Cyprus as a Proconsular Province

Under the Roman Empire, Cyprus was designated a senatorial province around 22 BC. Such senatorial provinces were governed by proconsuls, which aligns with Luke’s precise use of the term “proconsul” in Acts (e.g., also Acts 18:12 for Gallio in Achaia). This accurate terminology confirms Luke’s familiarity with Roman administrative arrangements. The historical assignment of Cyprus to senatorial authority means that a proconsul named Sergius Paulus could plausibly have held office there in the mid-first century.

3. Archaeological Clues and Known Inscriptions

Although ancient inscriptions mentioning Sergius Paulus are not abundant, a small number of epigraphic finds attest to the existence of officials bearing that exact or similar name in contexts that fit the broad time window of the Book of Acts:

• An inscription discovered near Paphos (in western Cyprus) refers to a “Paulus” who served in a governmental role.

• A boundary inscription under Emperor Claudius (AD 41–54) mentions a “Lucius Sergius Paullus” connected to official duties elsewhere in the Roman Empire, suggesting that members of the Sergii Paulli family did indeed serve in significant capacities during the first century.

Such evidence, while not voluminous, supports the plausibility of the Sergius Paulus mentioned in Acts. Historical data from antiquity often revolves around sparse inscriptions and fragmentary written records, so a few inscriptions referencing officials named Sergius Paulus are already meaningful corroboration.

4. The Reliability of Luke’s Historical Method

Luke, the human author of Acts, demonstrates remarkable precision in details such as titles of political figures (proconsuls, tetrarchs, etc.) and geographical references (cf. Acts 16:12 regarding Philippi’s status as a Roman colony). Archaeological and historical research—most famously advanced by Sir William Ramsay—has consistently shown Luke’s awareness of official designations and local customs.

That Luke accurately identified Sergius Paulus’s position as proconsul provides an internal mark of the trustworthiness of Acts. Given that his other geographical and political details regularly check out, the reference to Sergius Paulus is not an isolated claim but part of a larger pattern of historical reliability.

5. Reasons for Scant Archaeological or Historical References

Despite the established background of Sergius Paulus’s era and location, the specific conversion event mentioned in Acts 13 is not thoroughly documented outside of Scripture. Several reasons help explain why:

1. Limited Survival of Records: Most personal or political statements from first-century individuals have been lost to time. Natural degradation, wars, and local conditions in the Mediterranean region mean only a fraction of ancient documents or inscriptions remain.

2. Roman Officials’ Religious Decisions: High-ranking officials often did not record private religious choices on official inscriptions. Inscriptions and statues more commonly commemorate public works, dedications to emperors, or civic achievements rather than personal faith journeys.

3. Nature of Ancient Historical Writing: Ancient historians, such as Tacitus or Suetonius, often wrote about major political events and emperors but rarely focused on local proconsuls’ private convictions. A conversion to Christianity, especially in the early stages before Christianity’s broader impact was recognized, might not have seemed notable to pagan historians of the day.

4. Geographical and Cultural Shifts: The city of Paphos and surrounding areas changed significantly over time, facing earthquakes, conquests, and rebuilding efforts. Archaeological layers can be challenging to excavate or identify unequivocally, contributing to scarcity of inscriptions about specific individuals.

6. Understanding Arguments from Silence

An argument from silence (where one claims something did not happen because it is not attested outside the Bible) suffers from the incomplete nature of ancient historical records. The absence of further contemporary testimony regarding Sergius Paulus’s conversion does not invalidate Luke’s account, as most day-to-day events and personal religious conversions in the Roman world went unrecorded or were recorded in documents that did not survive.

7. Corroboration of Acts and Broader Scriptural Consistency

Acts repeatedly aligns with archaeology, political chronology, and geography. Instances such as the title of Gallio as proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12) are corroborated by an inscription discovered at Delphi in Greece, dating his tenure precisely. This framework of historical reliability extends across other New Testament writings as well.

Moreover, the Pauline epistles reflect interruptions from governmental authorities (e.g., 2 Corinthians 11:32 mentions a local governor under Aretas in Damascus), showcasing that Paul frequently crossed paths with rulers of various titles and offices, exactly as one might expect of someone traveling under Roman rule.

8. Conclusion

Scanty archaeological or historical references to Sergius Paulus’s conversion do not detract from its plausibility or from the reliability of the biblical account in Acts 13. The Book of Acts repeatedly aligns with known first-century Roman governance structures, and extrabiblical inscriptions attest to officials named Sergius Paulus at the correct historical juncture. The limited remains of ancient records, combined with the reality that personal religious decisions were typically not commemorated in Roman archives, explains why there is minimal external attestation of Sergius Paulus’s belief.

Nevertheless, the details of Luke’s record—his consistent use of official titles, the geographical context of Cyprus, and the credibility of the broader narrative—underscore the reliability of Acts. In the broader fabric of scriptural history, the account of Sergius Paulus stands in harmony with the established historical integrity of the Bible and highlights the transformative power of the gospel in the lives of individuals, including those of elevated Roman standing.