WHO WROTE:  LUKE.

 

See my Book of Luke commentary on “WHO WROTE.”  According to Acts 1:1, Luke tells “Theophilus,”  which means, “The Lover of God,” that “The former treatise,” or writing (his Book of Luke; see Luke 1:3 in which he names Theophilus), he, Luke, is now going to continue on with accounts which took place after that writing.  Therefore, we can safely conclude, with positive identification, that Luke is indeed the author of this Book.

 

The style and idiom of the Gospel of Luke and of the Book of Acts, and the usage of words and phrases common to Luke in both, strengthen the opinion that the Book of Acts was written by Luke.  The writer first appears in the narrative in Acts 16:11, and then disappears until Paul’s return to Philippi two years afterwards, when he and Paul left that place together (Acts 20:6), and the two seem henceforth to have been constant companions to the end.  He was certainly with Paul at Rome (Ch. 28; Col. 4:14).  Thus, Luke wrote a great portion, or all of that history of this Book from personal observation.

 

The “Muratorian Canon” ascribes the author of the Book of Acts to Luke.  By the end of the 2nd century the authority of the Book of Acts is as well established as that of the Gospel of Luke, according to Salmon, in his work, “Introduction to the New Testament,” 1885, page 366.  Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, all call Luke the author of the Book of Acts.  It is still further strengthened by the fact that the point of view of the Book is Pauline, but is, by the absence of references to Paul’s Epistles, written by another person.

 

 

WHAT TIME PERIOD IS COVERED:  B.C. 4 - 68 A.D.?

 

 

WHEN WRITTEN:  If, as is very probable, Second Timothy was written during Paul’s second imprisonment at Rome, around 67 or 68 A.D., Luke was the only one with Paul at that time to record any of the closing events of Paul’s life, as his faithful companion to the last (see 2Ti. 4:11).  It is well established that the Book of Acts was written after Luke wrote his Gospel.  Since Luke leaves out a most important event, the death of Paul, it is a fair assumption that the Book of Acts was written around this time (67 or 68 A.D.; Note, some scholars have Paul being killed by Nero in 64 A.D.).

 

 

INTRODUCTION:  The “we” sections in Acts 16:10-17; 20:6-16 & 21 & 27 & 28, prove that the author was a companion of Paul.  These sections have the fullness of detail and vivid description natural to an eyewitness.  This companion was with Paul in the second missionary journey at Troas and at Philippi, joined Paul’s party again at Philippi on the return to Jerusalem during the third tour, and probably remained with Paul until he went to Rome.

 

Some of Paul’s companions came to him at Rome.  Others are so described in the Book as to preclude authorship.  Aristarchus, Aquila and Priscilla, Erastus, Gaius, Mark, Silas, Timothy, Trophimus, Tychicus, and others more or less insignificant from the point of view of connection with Paul (like Crescens, Demas, Justus, Linus, Pudens, Sopater, etcetera) are easily eliminated.

 

Curiously enough, Luke and Titus are not mentioned in the Book of Acts by name at all.  They are distinct persons as is stated in Second Timothy 4:10.  Titus was with Paul in Jerusalem at the conference (Gal. 2:1) and was his special envoy to Corinth during the time of trouble there (2Co. 2:12; 12:18).  He was later with Paul in Crete (Tit. 1:5).  However, the absence of mention of Titus in Acts may be due to the fact that he was a brother of Luke (Compare 2Co. 8:18 with 2Co. 12:18).

 

As between Luke or Titus being the author of the Book of Acts, the medical language of Acts argues for Luke.  The writer was a physician.  This fact has been demonstrated by arguments from the use of medical terms used by the author, but is not all of equal weight.  Therefore, we turn to the style and the consistent points that are used by the language of a physician.  In other words, the writer uses medical terms in a technical sense.  This argument involves a minute comparison with the writings of physicians of the time.

 

In fact, Hippocrates, considered to be the father of medicine, uses fewer medical terms than Luke does in his Gospel, or here in the Book of Acts.  Thus, in Acts 28:3, “kathapto” is used in the sense of poisonous matter invading the body.  Luke uses it of a fever fixing itself on parts of the body.  Also, that the terms of the diagnosis in Acts 28:8(“pimprasthai” is a technical term for swelling) are medically exact and can be vouched for from medical literature.  The interest of the writer in matters of disease is also another indication (see Luke 8:43).

 

In an interesting point of history, it was the requirement of Paul’s day, when a person was to present his case before the emperor, as was Paul when he pleaded to Caesar (Acts 25:11), that letters of history of the individual be presented along with the individual.  It is thus surmised that Luke may have written his Gospel, and this Book of Acts, for this very purpose.  And, as we notice here in the Book of Acts, Chapter One, this is in letterform, addressed to one “Theophilus,” which is an indication that Luke himself may have been a slave (many Physicians in Paul’s day were slaves), loaned out by “Theophilus” for this very purpose.

 

On the walls and ceilings of the catacombs, the earliest Christians used such noncommittal paintings as the peacock (symbol of immortality), the dove (symbol of the Holy Spirit), a palm branch (symbol of victory), and especially the fish.  Only Christians knew that the Greek word for fish, “ichthus,” was an acronym for “Iesus Christos Theou Huios Soter,” that is, “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.”

​