The Literature and History of New Testament Times. J. Gresham Machen
written by an eyewitness of part of Paul's missionary journeys. This fact appears from the so-called "we-sections" of the book. In certain portions of the narrative the author uses the first person instead of the third. Of this peculiarity there is only one satisfactory explanation. The author uses the first person when he is describing the experiences in which he himself had a part. When, for example, the author says, not, "They made a straight course to Samothrace," but "We made a straight course," Acts 16:11, he means that he was present on that voyage. This natural supposition is confirmed by the character of the "we-sections." These sections are full of such a wealth of artless detail that no one but an eyewitness could possibly have written them.
The only possible way of avoiding the conclusion that a companion of Paul wrote the book of The Acts is to maintain that although such a man wrote the "we-sections" some one else wrote the rest of the book. But that is unlikely in the extreme. If a later author had been simply using as a source a diary of a companion of Paul, he would surely either have told us he was quoting, or else have changed the first person to the third. By leaving the third person in he would simply have been producing nonsense. Everyone knew who the author of the book was. The book is dedicated to a definite man. The author evidently could not have palmed himself off as a companion of Paul even if he would. And if he desired to do it, he would not have chosen this remarkable way of doing it. Of course if he had been a mere thoughtless compiler he might have copied his source with such slavish exactness as to leave the "we" in without noticing that in the completed work it would produce nonsense. But he was most assuredly not a mere compiler. If he used sources, he did not use them that way. The book shows a remarkable unity of style. Modern research has demonstrated that fact beyond peradventure. There is a remarkable similarity of style between the "we-sections" and the rest of the book. Only one hypothesis, then, does justice to the facts. The author of the "we-sections" was also the author of the whole book. When he comes to those parts of the narrative in which he himself had a part, he says very naturally "we," instead of "they."
The book of The Acts, then, was written by a companion of Paul. That fact stands firm, even apart from any tradition. And that is the really important fact. If the book was written by an eyewitness, the particular name of the eyewitness is comparatively unimportant. But the tradition as to the name is without doubt correct. There is not the slightest reason for calling it in question. What the book of The Acts itself says about its author fits exactly what Paul says about Luke.
2. DATE
The authorship of The Acts is certain. The date, however, is not so clear. The book was written by Luke. But when was it written? The latter question cannot be answered with perfect precision. At least, however, since the book was written by Luke, it must have been written during the lifetime of a companion of Paul. AD 100, for example, would be too late, and AD 90 would be unlikely. A good deal can be said for putting the date at about AD 63. This early date would explain the abrupt ending of the book.
One of the most curious things about The Acts is that the narrative is suddenly broken off just at the most interesting point. The trial of Paul is narrated at very great length, but we are not told how it came out. The final decision, the climax of the whole long narrative, is just at hand; but with regard to it we are left altogether in suspense. Was Paul released? Was he condemned and executed? The author does not say. His silence requires an explanation.
The simplest explanation would be that Luke wrote his book at the very point of time where the narrative is broken off. Of course he could not tell us any more if nothing more had happened. He brought his narrative right up to date. Nothing more was possible.
It is true, other explanations may be proposed.
(a) It has been suggested, for example, that The Acts closes so abruptly because the author was saving something for another work. As The Acts is the continuation of the Gospel of Luke, so a third work, it is said, was planned as the continuation of The Acts. But even so, it seems rather strange that the author should not have given at least a hint of the outcome of that trial in order to take the edge off our curiosity. He has done something like that at the conclusion of his Gospel; why not also at the conclusion of The Acts?
(b) But perhaps the ending is not so abrupt as it looks. The author's purpose, it is said, was not to write a biography of Paul, but to show how the gospel spread from Jerusalem to Rome. When Rome was reached, then the narrative was broken off. Biographical details—even the most interesting details about the most interesting character—were ruthlessly excluded. The plan of the book had been accomplished. For this explanation there is much to be said. But the trouble with it is that especially in the latter part of the book the author as a matter of fact does show considerable interest in biographical details. The trial and shipwreck of Paul are narrated with a fullness which is quite out of proportion to the rest of the history. After such a full account of the trial, it remains rather strange that the author has said not a word about the outcome.
Either of these last two explanations is perfectly possible. Possibly The Acts was written as late as AD 80. But the early date at least explains the peculiar ending best of all.
3. SOURCES
Where did Luke get the materials for his work? Did he use written sources as well as oral information? The question has been discussed at very great length, but without much uniformity in the results. If he used written sources, at least he used them skillfully, placing upon them the imprint of his own style. The book possesses genuine unity.
The really important fact about the sources of the book of The Acts is a negative fact. Whatever the sources were, the Pauline epistles were not among them. Compare the passages where Paul and Luke narrate the same events—for example Gal., chs. 1, 2, with the corresponding passages in The Acts—and it becomes evident that the two narratives are entirely independent. Luke did not use the Pauline epistles in writing his book. That is an exceedingly significant fact. It shows that The Acts is an independent witness. What is more, it strengthens materially the argument for the early date of The Acts. The Pauline epistles at a very early time began to be collected and used generally in the Church. In AD 100, for example, they would certainly have been used by anyone who was writing an account of Paul's life. Since, therefore, the book of The Acts does not use them, that book must have been written earlier, and probably very much earlier. Even in AD 80, it would perhaps have been strange that the epistles should not have been used.
4. PURPOSE
The proper purpose of a historian is to tell the truth. And Luke was a genuine historian. His own account of his method, Luke 1:1–4, shows that he knew the meaning of historical research, and the character of his books bears this out. Luke did not permit any desire of putting Christianity in a good light, or of defending one kind of Christianity against another, to interfere with the primary duty of truthfulness.
That does not mean, however, that the book of The Acts is like some modern university dissertations—written simply and solely in order to say some new thing, whether interesting or no. No great historian goes to work that way. Of course Luke had an interest in his subject matter. Of course he was convinced that Christianity was a great thing, and was full of enthusiasm in narrating its history. In that he was perfectly right. Christianity really was a great thing. The best celebration of its greatness was a narration of the facts. Christian faith is based on fact. Luke wrote, not only in the Gospel but also in The Acts, in order that his readers might know the certainty concerning the things wherein they were instructed. Luke 1:4.
5. LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS
The author of The Acts was well acquainted with the Old Testament. He was able to catch the spirit of the primitive Palestinian church. His books exhibit the influence of the Semitic languages. But he was also capable of a Greek style which would have passed muster in the schools of rhetoric. Luke 1:1–4, for example, is a typical Greek sentence. Evidently Luke could move with ease in the larger Greek world of his time. His references to political and social conditions are extraordinarily exact. His narrative is never lacking in local color. He knows the proper titles of the local officials, and the peculiar quality of the local superstitions.