Moreover, inscriptions discovered there have confirmed the narrative to a remarkable extent. They have shown that the _theatre_ was the recognised place of public meeting; that there were certain officers (who presided at the games, etc.) called _asiarchs_; that another well-known Ephesian officer was called the _town-clerk_; that Ephesus had the curious designation of _temple-keeper_ of Diana (long thought to be a difficulty); that _temple-robbing_ and _blasphemy_ were both crimes which were specially recognised by the Ephesian laws; and that the term _regular assembly_ was a technical one in use at Ephesus.[252] The reference to the _town-clerk_ is particularly interesting, because what is recorded of him is said to agree with the duties of the town-clerk at Ephesus, though not with those of the same official elsewhere.[253] All this minute accuracy is hard to explain unless the narrative came from one who was present during the riot, and recorded what he actually saw and heard. [Footnote 252: _Comp._ Acts 19. 29-39; with inscriptions found in the Great Theatre. Wood's Discoveries at Ephesus, 1877, pp. 43, 47, 53, 51, 15, 39.] [Footnote 253: Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles, translated by Wilkinson, 1909, p. 63.] (3.) _The agreement with St. Paul's Epistles._ Our third example shall be of a different kind. It is that if we compare the biography of St. Paul given in the Acts with the letters of that Apostle, many of them written to the very Churches and persons described there, we shall find numerous _undesigned agreements_ between them. And these, as before explained (Chapter X.) form a strong argument in favour of the accuracy of both. Take, for instance, the Epistle to the Romans. Though not dated, it was evidently written at the close of St. Paul's second visit to Greece; and therefore, if mentioned in the Acts, it would come in at Chapter 20. 3. And the following are two, out of the numerous points of agreement. The first is St. Paul's saying that he was going to Jerusalem, with alms from Macedonia and Achaia for the poor in that city. Now in the Acts it is stated that St. Paul had just passed through these provinces, and was on his way to Jerusalem, though there is no mention about the alms there. But it happens to be alluded to some chapters later, without, however, mentioning then where the alms came from.[254] The agreement is complete though it is certainly not designed. [Footnote 254: Rom. 15. 25, 26; Acts 19. 21; 24. 17.]