In Acts there are four passages in which the writer uses the pronoun "we" (16:10-17; 20:5-10;21:1-18;27:1-28:16). These would appear to have been taken from the diary of one of Paul's companions. The most likely explanation of these passages is that a companion of Paul used extracts from his own diary.
If this idea is accepted, we see the author as somebody who was with Paul at the times he indicates by the "we" but not named in the narrative, as the author would include himself in the "we"). When these extracts are examined a small group is left: Titus, Demos, Crescans, Jesus Justus, Epapharus, Epaphroditus and Luke. There seems no reason why anyone else other than Luke could be considered as the author.
Another reason why many people consider Luke, who was a physician, to be the author is that troughout we see medical knowledge and technical language used. One example of this is when he describes the man of being in the advanced stage of leporacy, "He was full of leporacy".
However, we have so far only discussed instances which may persuade the reader that Luke can be the only person considered as the author. We must realise that there are those who argue otherwise. One of their most serious objections to the Lukan authorship is that it differs to the other gospels and so some argue that because of this the writer of Luke could not have been a close companion of Paul. One example is the way pentecost and the speaking in tounges in Luke seems different to what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 14.
However, in my opinion differences of this type may well show that Luke was written in independence of anything else, however there are no real contradictions and the evidence for the Lukan authorship heavily outweighs the evidence against it. The fact that there is very little evidence for anybody else being the author must also be considered and so it must be concluded that Luke was the author.
The question of date is little more questionable and three dates have been suggested with some seriousness. These are, around AD 63, AD 75- 85 and the early second century. the date of Luke is very much linked to the date in which Acts was written, as Luke clearly must have been earlier than its sequel. It is now generally argued that the earliest date is most likely, Fot the following reasons:
- Acts ends with Paul in prision. If Luke knew of Paul's release or martyrsom he would most likely have mentioned it.
- The Pastoral Letters seem to show that Paul visited Ephesus again. If Luke wrote after that visit he would surely not have left Paul's prophecy that the Ephesians would not see him again stand without comment
- Luke notes the fullfillment of Agabus. If he were writing after AD 70 it is logical to expect him to mention the fulfilment of Jesus' prophecy that the city would be destroyed- often recently scholars have likened this to writing a diary entry dated 12 September 2001 and not mentioning the attacks a day previous and so surely Luke must have been before the fall of Jerusalem.
- In Acts no event after AD62 is mentioned, for example the death of James (AD62) or Paul and so it is fair to assume it was written before this date.
There are also certain issues which must be adressesed with the other two dates. Starting with the second centuary date. There are dissimilarities with any other material which was written at the time e.g. 1 Clement and there is no reference to the writing of Paul. With the 75- 85 date the main problem is the failure to mention the fall of Jerusalem. Such an important event would have surely been mantioned..
In conclusion, the earliest date seems the most likely. Although the evidence falls short of complete proof there is certainly more to be said for this date than any of the others.
By Chris Busby 13WL
