What an inscription can tell us

Begin with the object

Before asking whether a stone supports Acts, establish which stone is being discussed. The temple-warning evidence includes a complete inscription now in Istanbul and a fragment in Jerusalem. These are separate surviving objects. Their present locations, catalogue descriptions and surviving wording should not be blended into one imaginary object containing everything an argument needs.

Catalogue references help keep that identity stable. The Erastus pavement appears under both Corinth VIII.3 232 and EDH HD025815. Those references identify the same inscription in different catalogues; they do not supply two independent witnesses. A photograph, an edition and a museum record can help explain one object without becoming three discoveries.

Separate the dates

A discovery date tells you when an object entered the modern record. It does not tell you when its words were cut. The complete temple-warning stone was found in 1871; its ancient dating falls between Herod's rebuilding of the temple and its destruction in AD 70. The exact date of cutting remains unknown.

A date range also needs its reason. The Gallio letter at Delphi is dated from Claudius's imperial titles, most probably to the first seven months of AD 52. Moving from that letter to Gallio's term requires further reasoning: about AD 51/52 is most likely, while 52/53 remains possible. A precise date for the letter does not give equally precise dates for every associated event.

An office and a person are different claims

The politarch inscriptions show that Acts 17:6–8 uses a title appropriate to Thessalonica's civic rulers. They do not identify the officials before whom Jason appeared or confirm the disturbance. The office existed across a wider period and region, so getting its title right does not by itself establish eyewitness authorship or an early date for Acts.

Gallio offers a stronger personal connection: the Delphi letter identifies the governor and his office, with parts of the wording restored from surviving letters. It never mentions Paul. If Acts 18:12–17 correctly places the hearing before Gallio, the inscription helps date that hearing. Whether the hearing happened as narrated remains a separate historical judgment.

Test a proposed identity

The Erastus pavement records a man who paid for paving in connection with his aedileship, a civic office. Identifying him with the Erastus of Romans 16:23 requires agreement about his name, date and office. His full name is lost, the date is disputed, and scholars disagree about how the title in Romans relates to an aedileship. The connection is possible rather than demonstrated.

The Sergius Paulus inscriptions require similar restraint. A Roman stone names L. Sergius Paullus, but gives him no Cypriot office. Other proposed matches involve incomplete names, restoration or uncertain dating. No surviving inscription securely identifies the proconsul of Acts 13:7. A plausible name and career leave a proposal worth considering; they do not complete the identification.

State the conclusion at the right scale

Return to the claim you wanted to test. The temple notices establish a serious prohibition against non-Jews crossing the barrier into the inner courts. They explain the charge about Trophimus in Acts 21:28–29 without showing that he crossed it. An inscription can establish a rule, office or setting while leaving an accusation unproved. Keep that distinction when describing what the evidence adds to the story.