INTRODUCTION THE AUTHOR: (a) WHO HE WAS of and adds greatly ours! For T is always of interest, and adds greatly to our understanding of any book, to know who the author was. instance, in the case of Xenophon's Anabasis, it adds greatly to our understanding of that work to know that he who played a practical part in the events which he describes was the author of the history of those events-although, strange to say, he seems to state that he was not (Hellenics iii. 1, 2). Our means of finding out the authorship of any book are, roughly speaking, two-(1) internal, from its contents, style, etc.; (2) external, i.e. from mentions of it by other writers. In the case of the Acts, (1) our most important internal evidence is that contained in the introduction, where the writer says that he had made a 'former treatise', and then mentions by name one Theophilus. Now the Gospel of St. Luke is also dedicated to a Theophilus. If St. Luke was the author of the Gospel ascribed to him, it seems reasonable to assume that he is also the author of the Acts. This is also further borne out by the similarity of style, and by the fact that many words are peculiar to the third Gospel and the Acts.* (2) Turning to the external evidence, all the earliest mentions of its author state that he was St. Luke. Perhaps the earliest of these which we possess is the 'Muratorian fragment' (a list of the books of the New Testament drawn up * For the evidence of the 'we' sections, see next page. about A.D. 170-175). A little later, Irenæus, a bishop of Lyons, who wrote about A.D. 190, also speaks of the author as 'Luke who was inseparable from Paul and his fellow-worker in the Gospel'. Tertullian, who wrote about A.D. 200, speaks of events recorded in the Acts as being mentioned in the 'commentary of Luke'. Eusebius, a Church historian who wrote about A.D. 325, says similarly, ‘Luke, by race of Antioch and by profession a physician, having associated mainly with Paul, and having companied with the rest of the Apostles less closely, has left us examples of that healing of souls which he acquired from them in two inspired books-the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles'. But there is one curious feature about the Acts, viz. those sections in which the writer uses the pronoun 'we', from which it would be natural to suppose that he himself was then present. These sections are to be carefully noticed: they begin (according to some texts) in xi. 27, 'There came down from Jerusalem prophets to Antioch, and there was much rejoicing: and when we were gathered together . . .'; in xiv. 22 the Apostles instruct the disciples at Antioch in Pisidia 'that through many tribulations we must enter into the Kingdom of God', which may imply that the writer was present; in xvi. 10 (in the account of the second missionary journey), we endeavoured to go into Macedonia.' The 'we' is then used till verse 17, just before St. Paul and Silas are imprisoned at Philippi. The 'we' is used again in xx. 5, at Philippi, and continues till xxi. 18, throughout the journey to Jerusalem. It appears again in xxvii. 1, at the beginning of St. Paul's journey to Rome, and continues almost to the end of the book (xxviii. 16). These sections have led some to suppose either : (1) That these, at all events, are not the work of St. Luke, but are taken from the note-book of some fellow-traveller with St. Paul: or (2) That whether these sections are the work of St. Luke or not, the Acts was put together in its form as we have it by some compiler who lived very much later than St. Luke. (1) As to the first of these two views:-Some have supposed that the fellow-traveller of St. Paul who composed these notes was (a) Timothy: But it seems quite impossible to suppose that the writer of the Acts could speak of Timothy in the third person, for example in xvi. 1, xvii. 14, and yet leave his notes still in the first person in the 'we' sections. This impossibility is rendered still more strong by comparing xx. 4, where Timothy is mentioned in the third person, with xx. 6, which begins with 'we' again. (6) Silas: But if so, xvi. 16-19 could not possibly have been left as we have the section; for, whereas in verse 16 we have 'we', in verse 19 we have Silas mentioned by name. To imagine St. Luke to have used Silas's notes, and yet to have left him mentioned in the third person is to accuse him of more carelessness than that of even a modern compositor. Besides, in the list of those who were with St. Paul at Rome, which we can gather from the Epistles which he wrote at Rome, there is no mention of Silas. = This leads on to the mention of a further variety of this theory, viz. that 'Silas' and 'Luke' are the same person. It is argued (a) that Silas Silvanus, and is derived from silva, 'a wood', and Lucas Lucanus, and is derived from lucus, 'a grove'; (b) that Silas and Luke are never mentioned together in the New Testament. = But xvi. 16-19 seems quite inconsistent with this view. According to this view our 'Silas Luke' is so careless a writer as to refer to himself in verse 16 in the first person and in verse 19 in the third person. Further, although it is perfectly true that many people in the New Testament are spoken of by different names (e.g. St. Mark, who is called 'John' and 'Mark'), yet in all these cases one name is derived from one language, and one from another: whereas both Silvanus and Lucanus are Latin. (c) Titus: There is certainly a great deal which might be said to support the theory that he was the author of these 'we' sections. Although we do not know that he was with St. Paul during the times described in them, we do know that he was St. Paul's intimate and close friend. And it would certainly seem at first sight that he and Luke might be the same person. But this is rendered quite impossible by the words of 2 Timothy iv. 10, 'Titus is gone to Dalmatia: only Luke is with me'. No one else of those whom we know to have been with St. Paul at Rome need be seriously considered. We therefore conclude unhesitatingly that St. Luke is the author of the 'we' sections. (2) We now turn to the other wider theory which says that the Acts as we have it was put together by a compiler, or several compilers, who lived very much later than St. Luke: and that he, or they, had before them several histories, such as a 'History of Peter,' a 'History of Paul,' etc. Now it is perfectly true that many books of the Old Testament were put together as we have them from different sources, e.g. the Pentateuch. But the Acts shows a great unity such as no compiler or compilers could give to it. It is a whole, carefully and accurately put together. And also there is a similarity of style which no compiler could have given to it. We therefore conclude again unhesitatingly that St. Luke is the author of the whole of the Acts as we have it. I. (6) FACTS KNOWN ABOUT THE AUTHOR Practically all that we know about St. Luke is found in the New Testament. Let us therefore first gather together such mentions of him as we can find there, so far as possible in order of time, and then see what these passages show us about him. |