One cannot argue the historicity and authorship of the Book of Acts without paying equal heed to the Gospel of Luke. They are two parts of a whole message authored to a Gentile audience that has touched generation upon generation. Even they do not stand alone, for they form a historical backdrop which connects the other Gospels, Epistles and Prophetic texts. From the plateau of history Luke draws the believer a vivid map through which he can connect all the Scriptures highlighting the path of sanctification through the divine Son of Man and the transforming work of the Holy Spirit. This article will demonstrate by examination of both natural and supernatural evidence the historicity and reliability of the works authored by Luke stand irreproachable to a sincere mind and heart.

Connection to Third Gospel and Purpose in Writing

The connection between the third Gospel and the Book of Acts is rarely challenged because the evidence for single authorship weighs so heavy. Both were addressed to Theophilus (Acts 1:3; Luke. 1:1): the prologue of Acts refers back to the previous narrative and Acts picks up where the narrative in Luke left off. The historically disciplined writing style and choice of language are also consistent which befits a single author and, because of this, they are often referred to as a single work called Luke-Acts. As Luke-Acts comprises about sixty percent of the New Testament’s content, the critical scholar is concerned with investigating the historicity of these writings.

Given the clearly stated purpose – to provide an orderly recounting of events to a man named Theophilus – within the writing itself (Luke 1:1-4), scholars have continued to ascribe additional motives to its authorship. Some argue that it was an apology for Paul; however, it is difficult to imagine a Pauline apology accounting for the whole of Acts, let alone the Third Gospel¹⁴ and much of this is based upon supposition and the need to validate a late date of authorship. Others propose it as a political apologetic, addressing “whether Christians can be good citizens of the Roman Empire”¹ so that they might maintain religious freedom. However, given that Luke’s case was theologically centered on Christianity’s continuity with Judaism, very few Roman officials would have appreciated the argument or even found interest in it.¹⁴

In the twentieth century it was discovered that the Roman’s required religions to have a special operating license granting a status of religio licita (permitted/approved religion). Some argue “the purpose of Luke-Acts was to present Christianity as a genuine branch of Judaism in order to enjoy its privileges”¹⁴. However, recent scholarship has thrown doubts on the premise that religio licita existed at the time of writing¹⁴.  One might counter with a late date of writing, but at a later date it is unlikely that anything positive could have been gleaned from tying Christianity to Judaism, considering the Roman-Jewish conflicts in the late-first to early-second centuries. Such a link would have been counterproductive and made a poor political apologia indeed.

While it does not seem likely the primary purpose in writing Luke-Acts contained a political agenda, one cannot ignore that there are more elements of political awareness in Luke-Acts than in other parts of the New Testament. Political and social concerns would not be unexpected in this more cultured kind of audience¹⁷ and “the theme of innocence is subordinate to that of righteousness and so motivated more by religious than by political concerns’”.⁷ Therefore, it seems most likely that the author’s stated purpose encompasses the true scope of Luke-Acts. It is meant to be an accurate, orderly account of the events being investigated, and other elements that may seem to indicate additional motives are more a product of the author himself than they are speaking to purpose.

Writing Style and Sources

In Luke 1:1 the author refers to his writings using the term diegesin (narrative) and applied it to his entire two-volume history⁷. “It’s a story told from the plateau of history. Indeed Luke-Acts is the first attempt to write a history of the Christian movement from the inside.”¹⁷

Luke-Acts contains a high level of precision and detail in the writing. From the language one can infer that the author was very knowledgeable about the Septuagint and also aware of Hellenistic literary patterns, both historiographical and novelistic.¹ He sets the stage historically and records the accounts in a very methodical manner “as a good Roman author would”.⁸

The author was well-educated and well-read, because the Greek in Luke-Acts is the highest quality in style of anything in the New Testament. “It reads more like a novel in the Greek tradition…so anyone on the street of a Greek city picking up Luke’s gospel would have felt at home with it if they were able to read good Greek.”¹⁷ The author not only uses the finest Greek, but also is able to adapt the style to fit the occasion, seamlessly crafting varied sources into a literary masterpiece. For example, while the prologue of Luke is written in a very fine literary Greek, the birth narrative which follows has a strong Semitic style befitting its Jewish context. The book of Acts returns to a more Greek style “in line with the transition of the gospel message from a Jewish to a Gentile environment.”¹⁶ Henry J. Cadbury felt that Luke was perfectly at home with the idiomatic Greek of his day. “He stands high ‘from the cultural viewpoint excelling not only the other evangelists, but even Paul.’” (Cadbury quoted in Hall)⁶

Even with a well-educated and talented author, a historical writer is only as good as his sources and these sources are hotly contested among scholars. Most scholarly theories assume the Gospels either used a singular source document or copied from each other in one order or another due to the exactness of shared accounts. Decades have been spent examining minutia and proposing theories of who copied whom and the existence of the infamous Q, M and L manuscripts. Yet, archaeology and history have discovered no trace of any Q, M or L documents.¹⁶ Such theories are often based off of existing assumptions regarding the dating of authorship and leave a couple of key factors off the table of consideration. First, while the scholar acknowledges the existence of robust oral tradition, the exactness of the transmission of oral tradition is a fact seemingly thrown out the window when considering the similarities of phrasing between the gospel accounts. Second, and most importantly, the scholars completely ignore divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit guiding the spread, collection and use of source materials.

The author was aware of other sources (Luke 1:1-4) and was making an attempt to collect and give an orderly account. “Acts is certainly a composite in the sense that it is based on a variety of sources, both oral and written.”¹³ The most likely hypothesis is that Luke obtained information from multiple sources to verify the accounts in the Gospel and the earlier chapters of Acts. This could have been from any of the churches or eyewitnesses to whom he had access and would have included verbal accounts through interview as well as anything written down. “The possibility that he obtained information from such places as Jerusalem, Caesarea and Antioch is strong. Indeed it is almost inconceivable that a writer on the early church would not have done so.”¹² Thus after collecting the accounts, verifying details and dates as thoroughly as he was able, he began to write an account of those elements he deemed most relevant to his audience.

Historicity and the Historian

Good history is judged both by what is written and what is left unwritten. One must ask whether or not the author, having collected accounts from these varied sources, measured up as a good historian, one that chooses events that are significant, show trends, turning points and relationships.⁷ Most Bible-believing scholars agree the author is a first-class historian. In flow, the author demonstrated good use of framework by “following the theme suggested by the words of Jesus: ‘You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth’ (Acts 1:8). Chapters 1-7 describe the events in Jerusalem, chapters 8-12 follow the spread through Judea and Samaria, while chapters 13-28 see the gospel move toward the ends of the earth.”⁷

Although the author was undeniably Gentile, when assessing the author of Luke-Acts one must compare the writings against both Hellenistic and Jewish writers of that time. ¹² It is also wrong to judge an ancient historian merely by contemporary standards. “There were different standards of accuracy and there was a different outlook on the world…He must be placed against his own environment.”¹²

According to the Ancient Document Rule, “A document from antiquity in proper custody that purports to be giving an accurate account should be accepted as authentic until it is proven not to be…This rule is used in law courts to establish authenticity of old documents.”⁴ One need not lean on this law too heavily in this case because so much of the historical detail within Luke-Acts can be and has been verified. “William Ramsay spent twenty years of research in the area Luke wrote about. His conclusion was that in references to thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands Luke made no mistakes! That is a record to be envied by historians of any era.” ⁴ Examples of specialized knowledge and some undesigned coincidences are documented in Appendix One.

The author also had knowledge of very specific details. He “manifests an incredible array of knowledge of local places, names, conditions, customs, and circumstances that befit an eyewitness contemporary recording the time and events. Acts 13-28, covering Paul’s travels, particularly shows intimate knowledge of local circumstances…Numerous things are confirmed by historical and archaeological research.”⁴ Forty-three citations of specific instances can be read in Appendix Two.

One historical nuance of note is that titles of leaders were more fluid in antiquity than today.² Yet archaeology has confirmed repeatedly this author got them right. The accuracy of the author “extends also to the more general sphere of local color and atmosphere. He gets the atmosphere right every time.”² German-speaking scholars argue that historical accuracy can often be found in the background of a novel; that such a novelist might go to great pains to get his background authentic. I. Howard Marshall refutes this suggestion as “totally unconvincing. It assumes that Luke wrote like a modern novelist, striving for verisimilitude; this is sheer anachronism.”¹² Additionally, many of the details are trivial, not the sort of thing one would superfluously research. ¹² This would also go against the author’s own claim to be writing an accurate history. Therefore, if one is to believe the skeptic’s claim that Acts is a historical novel rather than a factual account, some proof must be brought forth. The level of writing and its accuracy speak to truthfulness.

Dating

The likely date of writing is important because it lends credence to other aspects of historicity such as eyewitness accounts, and grounds the reader in the appropriate motive of the writer. Some scholars have tried to place authorship at the end of the first century into the second. Some claim the author of Luke-Acts was influenced by Josephus (c. 37-100 AD). “Cadbury denies that Josephus had any special influence on Luke, as Krenkel so laboriously tried to establish.”⁶ Hall concludes the author “is to be placed within his own time and place. He was a writer with a good command of the Greek idiom; he followed a style common to the Greek writers of his day. The contention that he placed his own individual touches to his writings is not to be denied; yet he writes within the framework of his own contemporaries.”⁶ It may also be worthy of note that many attempts to date the authoring outside of a contemporary timeframe originate from unbelievers who go to great lengths to find evidence to undermine biblical historicity. Agendas blur objectivity.

Events included and absent provide clues to the date of authorship. Marshall writes, “There is nothing in the evidence to suggest a date of composition for Luke-Acts much later than the last events recorded in the book.”¹² To the contrary, there are many reasons to believe the traditional early dating, some of which are recorded in Appendix Three. These leave little possibility for the later dating some suggest.

Identity

From the prologues of Luke-Acts one can gather that the author was not an eyewitness of the events of Jesus’s life, but had access to those who had. One can also ascertain the author had more sources than the other Gospels because Luke contains teachings from Jesus that are not included in the others such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the Parable of the Lost Son. “The author would have needed to have access to multiple eyewitnesses to be able to possess such knowledge and to be able to construct the orderly account that he did.”³

There is evidence the author traveled as a close associate of Paul as the narration switches from third to first person in Acts chapter 16. These “we” passages (Acts 16:10–17, 20:5–15, 21:1–18, 27:1–28:16) imply personal participation in the events. “From this we can deduce that Paul would likely make reference to this person in his epistles. While Paul mentions several men, Aristarchus, Tychicus, Timothy, and Mark are mentioned in the third person within the text and so are ruled out as candidates for authorship of Acts. Of the remaining possibilities the consensus of early Christian tradition points to Luke (Phi. 23-24; Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:9-11) as the author of Luke-Acts.”¹¹ The style of writing in the “we” passages is indistinguishable from the other writings which indicates the author accompanied Paul on parts of the second and third missionary journeys and to Rome.⁷ This substantiates that Luke had the needed access to eyewitnesses “such as Philip the evangelist in Caesarea (Acts 21:8) and John Mark.”⁷

In Luke-Acts medical matters are described to a greater degree than in other Gospels leading some to attest this confirms Luke as the author due to Paul’s reference to him as a doctor (Colossians 4:14; Philemon 24). Others counter this makes too many assumptions about what general knowledge among people at that time would be. For instance, J. Naylor points out that many in the long list of medical words can be found in the Septuagint, with which one already knows the author was familiar.⁶ “The question that presents itself, therefore, is not whether there are many parallels between the diction of Luke and that of medical writers, but whether these parallels are more numerous or more striking than those which can be found in non-professional men, writing with the same culture on similar subjects.”⁶ A layman’s use of medical terminology does not preclude the authorship referenced by the Apostle. The presence of medical terms is simply one added clue to the pile of evidence. The internal evidence – the educational background, the eyewitness access, the resources, and the training needed – strongly points to someone of the caliber of Luke, the physician.³

Lastly, one should examine who the author’s contemporaries understood him to be, leaving less time for myth and tradition to overcome truth. “Externally, the early church is unanimous that Dr. Luke wrote the Third Gospel and the book of Acts.”³ The writings of Irenaeus (c. 130-202 AD), Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 AD) and the document known as the Muratorian Canon (c. 180 AD) all confirm Luke as author.^3,5 Even the heretic and Pauline fanatic Marcion affirmed that that the Gospel of Luke was written by Paul’s companion.⁵ This leaves no doubt that within a very short amount of time historical records confirm the common knowledge held that Paul’s friend, the physician Luke, to be the author of Luke-Acts.

Significance

The significance of these conclusions goes beyond naming the third gospel and categorizing Luke-Acts within a literary genre. Recalling that Luke-Acts makes up nearly sixty percent of the New Testament scriptures, “If Acts is shown to be accurate history, then it brings credibility to its reports about the most basic Christian beliefs of miracles, the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ.”⁴ It encourages belief within the body of the church because “If Acts was written by Luke, the companion of the apostle Paul, it brings us right to the apostolic circle, those who participated in the events reported.” ⁴  Paul’s epistles are likewise bolstered by the authenticity of Luke’s accounts.⁹

Though Luke-Acts was written as a single treatise, the perspective presented by Luke in the Gospel is so divinely differentiated from the other three Gospels that one can only disregard it through intentional folly. By the amazing work of the Holy Spirit, the Gospels present four unique portraits of Jesus fitting together to show a more complete picture of His life, His service, His purpose and His heart.¹⁶

Absent acknowledgement of supernatural guidance, the intentional variance in the accounts has led many scholars down speculative roads to nowhere. Divine orchestration can be observed in how Matthew reveals Jesus as a King and Messiah, Mark reveals Jesus as Servant, Luke reveals Jesus as the Son of Man and John reveals Jesus as the Son of God. The portrait that Luke paints of Jesus is just as critical as all the others, for without it, how are believers to recognize what divine humanity looks like? If believers are to understand what sanctification through being born again means, the writing of Luke-Acts becomes indispensable. “Jesus is a powerful figure and comes across as a liberator, a great miracle worker. But also, and this is interesting in view of the authorship of Luke, also as the quintessential benefactor. He is the one who dispenses the great gifts of God and God is viewed again as a great benefactor figure in Luke/Acts.”⁸  

The combination of Luke-Acts is also significant in that there are no other accounts concerning the early church. “To this extent Luke was an innovator, and the impetus for his work lay in his unique position… he testified that the two stories are really one, and that the break between them is not of such decisive importance as that between the period of the Law and the Prophets and the period in which the gospel of the kingdom is preached.”¹²

“The spread of the gospel to the ends of the earth marks the culmination of what Jesus began to do and teach. The Pattern of the beginning is definitive for the church in Luke’s day… and ours…The work of Luke remains the center of the New Testament, spanning the Gospels and the Epistles and joining them together in one whole.”¹² Luke’s historical perspective acts as a map for the seeker. It provides a backdrop, linking separate parts of God’s Word together to form a landscape where the path to salvation can be found. All of this occurred without the author having access to or collaborating with the other writers of scripture. By this we see evidence of the hand of God through the work of the Holy Spirit. For this reason it is quite appropriate when Horton suggests the title of Acts should more descriptively read, “The Acts of the Risen Lord by the Holy Spirit In and Through the Church.”⁷

Significance may also lie in the abrupt ending of Acts. Some suggest that some New Testament books have abrupt endings because “the writer had completely filled his codex and had no room for a fuller conclusion.” While this could be possible, it should be noted that the “last quarter of the book is very diffuse, and much might have been omitted without serious loss” if that were the case.¹³ Considering the skillset of the author it is unlikely the open ending was intentional on his behalf. There is speculation that he may have been killed around the time of Paul’s execution thus preventing a tailored epilogue. Perhaps this is also by providence since the church has interpreted this lack of conclusion as inspired direction to continue the story. The spread of the Gospel message to the ends of the earth continues.

Conclusion

The evidence shows that Luke-Acts were authored together to write a historically accurate, orderly account of events concerning the life of Jesus and the spread of His message. The author was well equipped to the task, being well-educated, steeped in the Septuagint, capable of writing in advanced Greek and being historically disciplined in his approach. His historical accuracy for details both large and trivial is unmatched, which supports a contemporary authoring. From Paul’s epistle reference to the physician Luke, the “we” passages beginning in Acts 16, and the obvious access to eyewitnesses the author undoubtedly had, it is safe to conclude that Doctor Luke is the only valid candidate for authorship of the third gospel. Extra-biblical sources dating within a century of Luke-Acts confirm contemporary acceptance of this conclusion.

Luke-Acts provides a continuing picture of the Divine Man in Jesus and how believers are to walk out that sanctification, spreading the Good News through disciples everywhere. It is from this plateau, Luke’s perspective from history, that a believer can see himself a player in the continuing story. “We need to do more than study the Book of Acts, we need to live it!”⁷