Читать книгу The Literature and History of New Testament Times - J. Gresham Machen - Страница 41

Who wrote the book of The Acts? How do you know? The former question will probably be answered without difficulty, but the latter may reveal difference of opinion. Many of the students will know that The Acts was written by the same man as the Gospel of Luke. But that does not settle the question. How do you know that Luke was written by Luke? The name does not occur in the Gospel itself. The title, "According to Luke," was probably added later. So, in order to determine the authorship both of Luke and of The Acts, recourse must be had to Christian tradition.

Fortunately, however, tradition in this case is quite unimpeachable.

In the first place, although the author of The Acts is not named in the book, yet the book is not an anonymous work. Undoubtedly the name of the author was known from the beginning. For the book is dedicated to an individual, Theophilus. Evidently Theophilus knew who the author was. Information about the author could thus be had from the start. If, therefore, Luke did not really write The Acts, some one has removed the name of the true author and substituted "Luke" in place of it. That is an exceedingly unlikely supposition.

In the second place, it is evident quite independently of any tradition that the book was 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.